Sorry -- I hit "send" before I had finished pasting all of the sections I intended to -- here is the more complete version -- you can see the whole bill of rights at
http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/constitution/saconst02.html?rebookmark=1#31

On Aug 4, 2005, at 8:25 AM, Steven Jamar wrote:

fwiw here are the South African Constitutional provisions relating to  freedom of religion and freedom of _expression_:

Equality

9. (1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

(2) 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.

(3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

(4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.

(5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.


Freedom of religion, belief and opinion

15. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.

(2) Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that ­

  1. those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities;
  2. they are conducted on an equitable basis; and
  3. attendance at them is free and voluntary.

(3)

  1. This section does not prevent legislation recognising ­
    1. marriages concluded under any tradition, or a system of religious, personal or family law; or
    2. systems of personal and family law under any tradition, or adhered to by persons professing a particular religion.
  2. Recognition in terms of paragraph (a) must be consistent with this section and the other provisions of the Constitution.

Freedom of _expression_

16. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of _expression_, which includes ­

  1. freedom of the press and other media;
  2. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
  3. freedom of artistic creativity; and
  4. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

(2) The right in subsection (1) does not extend to ­

  1. propaganda for war;
  2. incitement of imminent violence; or
  3. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

Language and culture

30. Everyone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, but no one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.


Cultural, religious and linguistic communities

31. (1) Persons belonging to a cultural, religious or linguistic community may not be denied the right, with other members of that community ­

  1. to enjoy their culture, practise their religion and use their language; and
  2. to form, join and maintain cultural, religious and linguistic associations and other organs of civil society.

(2) The rights in subsection (1) may not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.

Limitation of rights

36. (1) The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including ­

  1. the nature of the right;
  2. the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
  3. the nature and extent of the limitation;
  4. the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
  5. less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.




On Aug 4, 2005, at 8:01 AM, Francis Beckwith wrote:

Interesting suggestion. It would be a sort of anti-Blaine amendment. But that would imply that those that offered the Blaine amendment were suggesting what was unnecessary.  However, if it was necessary, then the EC, and Paul’s Madisonian take on it, does not get us to a Blaine-meaning EC (so to speak).

Frank

On 8/4/05 6:53 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:47:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given the regulatory state in which we live—one that requires that parents who send their children to religious private school must pay for both the school tuition as well as taxes to fund public schools--it seems to me that the principle from which Madison drew his conclusion is not so easily dispositive in resolving this dispute.
       On the assumption that Madison's view, stated by Paul in his earlier post, accurately represents the original meaning of the EC, then shouldn't those who contend it unfairly discriminates against religion regarding governmental benefits advocate amending the First Amendment to explicitly state the EC doesn't apply to these entitlements?
 
Bobby  

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                                         vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW           mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC  20008

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

-- 

Prof. Steven D. Jamar                                     vox:  202-806-8017

Howard University School of Law                           fax:  202-806-8428

2900 Van Ness Street NW                            mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Washington, DC  20008           http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar


"Years ago my mother used to say to me... 'In this world Elwood' ... She always used to call me Elwood... 'In this world Elwood, you must be Oh So Smart, or Oh So Pleasant.' Well for years I was smart -- I recommend pleasant.  You may quote me." --Elwood P. Dowd


- Mary Chase, "Harvey", 1950



_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to