A CONSTITUTIONAL DISPOSITION OF CULTURAL MALE CIRCUMCISION AS A HERITAGE RIGHT
South Africa’s constitutional framework entrenches a variety of legislative imperatives that protects culture as a right. Sections 30 and 31 of the Constitution, 1996 were specifically enshrined to resonate with the spirit and purport of the need to protect cultural rights. Some statutory enactment...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University Business Academy in Novi Sad Faculty of Law for Commerce and Judiciary
2022-10-01
|
| Series: | Pravo |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://casopis.pravni-fakultet.edu.rs/index.php/ltp/article/view/674 |
| _version_ | 1811192609750646784 |
|---|---|
| author | Mashele Rapatsa |
| author_facet | Mashele Rapatsa |
| author_sort | Mashele Rapatsa |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
South Africa’s constitutional framework entrenches a variety of legislative imperatives that protects culture as a right. Sections 30 and 31 of the Constitution, 1996 were specifically enshrined to resonate with the spirit and purport of the need to protect cultural rights. Some statutory enactments such as Children’s Act 38 of 2005 and Limpopo Initiation Schools Act 6 of 2016 are also highly respectful of cultural rights thereby enabling cultural families and communities to subject their children to practice any such cultural activities of their choice, but to the extent that it is practicable. It is argued that while South Africa’s post-1994 constitutional apparatus are fundamentally rights-based orientated and thus require the state and every legal and juristic persons to be bearers of such a responsibility of protecting human rights, the state is correspondingly obligated to protect cultural rights as a constitutional entitlement in order for citizens to enjoy heritage as a right, either as a group or individuals with cultural orientation. Constitutionally speaking, the state is prohibited from engaging in acts that unjustly interferes with free enjoyment of heritage as a right. The article adopted a traditional legal doctrinal methodological approach, which is best suited for interpreting legislative instruments to capture a variety of plausible meanings and implications to a real life legal situation.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T23:55:20Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8fea40b131c14145af443b3bd5b6ddc2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0352-3713 2683-5711 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T23:55:20Z |
| publishDate | 2022-10-01 |
| publisher | University Business Academy in Novi Sad Faculty of Law for Commerce and Judiciary |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Pravo |
| spelling | doaj.art-8fea40b131c14145af443b3bd5b6ddc22022-12-22T03:56:23ZengUniversity Business Academy in Novi Sad Faculty of Law for Commerce and JudiciaryPravo0352-37132683-57112022-10-0139310.5937/ptp2203113RA CONSTITUTIONAL DISPOSITION OF CULTURAL MALE CIRCUMCISION AS A HERITAGE RIGHT Mashele Rapatsa0PhD candidate, School of Law, University of Limpopo, South Africa, University of Groningen, The Netherlands South Africa’s constitutional framework entrenches a variety of legislative imperatives that protects culture as a right. Sections 30 and 31 of the Constitution, 1996 were specifically enshrined to resonate with the spirit and purport of the need to protect cultural rights. Some statutory enactments such as Children’s Act 38 of 2005 and Limpopo Initiation Schools Act 6 of 2016 are also highly respectful of cultural rights thereby enabling cultural families and communities to subject their children to practice any such cultural activities of their choice, but to the extent that it is practicable. It is argued that while South Africa’s post-1994 constitutional apparatus are fundamentally rights-based orientated and thus require the state and every legal and juristic persons to be bearers of such a responsibility of protecting human rights, the state is correspondingly obligated to protect cultural rights as a constitutional entitlement in order for citizens to enjoy heritage as a right, either as a group or individuals with cultural orientation. Constitutionally speaking, the state is prohibited from engaging in acts that unjustly interferes with free enjoyment of heritage as a right. The article adopted a traditional legal doctrinal methodological approach, which is best suited for interpreting legislative instruments to capture a variety of plausible meanings and implications to a real life legal situation. https://casopis.pravni-fakultet.edu.rs/index.php/ltp/article/view/674cultural rightscultural male circumcisionhuman rightsadministrative justiceheritage right |
| spellingShingle | Mashele Rapatsa A CONSTITUTIONAL DISPOSITION OF CULTURAL MALE CIRCUMCISION AS A HERITAGE RIGHT Pravo cultural rights cultural male circumcision human rights administrative justice heritage right |
| title | A CONSTITUTIONAL DISPOSITION OF CULTURAL MALE CIRCUMCISION AS A HERITAGE RIGHT |
| title_full | A CONSTITUTIONAL DISPOSITION OF CULTURAL MALE CIRCUMCISION AS A HERITAGE RIGHT |
| title_fullStr | A CONSTITUTIONAL DISPOSITION OF CULTURAL MALE CIRCUMCISION AS A HERITAGE RIGHT |
| title_full_unstemmed | A CONSTITUTIONAL DISPOSITION OF CULTURAL MALE CIRCUMCISION AS A HERITAGE RIGHT |
| title_short | A CONSTITUTIONAL DISPOSITION OF CULTURAL MALE CIRCUMCISION AS A HERITAGE RIGHT |
| title_sort | constitutional disposition of cultural male circumcision as a heritage right |
| topic | cultural rights cultural male circumcision human rights administrative justice heritage right |
| url | https://casopis.pravni-fakultet.edu.rs/index.php/ltp/article/view/674 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mashelerapatsa aconstitutionaldispositionofculturalmalecircumcisionasaheritageright AT mashelerapatsa constitutionaldispositionofculturalmalecircumcisionasaheritageright |