The Media and Their Part in Human Rights Protection


The criminal matter of Oscar Pistorius is no secret. The justification behind the hype is that he is a celebrity. Every day, for the past four days, little tid-bits of interpretations and rarely facts were hogging the headlines of this matter.


Meanwhile, a six year old girl was raped today by a fellow student at her school in Western Cape. In addition to this, a woman was gang-raped by a group of men, some of whom have been arrested.


Compared to the headlines stolen by the Pistorius case, who would want to hear about South Africa’s most tragic flaw? Who is being failed here?

  1. The justice system – the media can play a crucial role in societal awareness.
  2. Its people – who better to propagate a crime-preventative society than its people?
  3. The victims – being outgunned by the same system which was built to protect them is not justified.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The End to Peeping Toms

Since 5 December 2011, the Protection from Harassment Act, 2011 (“the Act”) has been tested throughout South African Magisterial Courts within the civil context. Apart from some fine-tuned housekeeping by these Courts, the orders emanating from this Act have some far-reaching consequences. Regardless, it has seen to the end of the archaic Peace Orders which, in practice, served very little (if any) purpose in the way of protecting victims of harassment, civil abuse, and intimidation. How does one know if conduct to which he/she is being subjected would fall under the protection offered by the Act? Essentially, the Act authorises the Courts to conduct two enquiries into each application: is there harassment , and if the answer to this question is in the affirmative, does the harassment cause harm ? As it is with all spheres of law, the answers to these questions are far from simple. Section 1 of the Act defines both “Harassment” and “harm”. Harassment has been attributed ...
Read more

The Frustrations of Interim Orders

In my very short-lived but extensive experience of the Maintenance Courts, Gauteng, I have sadly become disappointed with what has recently transpired. Magistrates and Maintenance Officers from certain jurisdictions have taken an antagonistic approach towards "Interim Orders" and "Provisional Orders" for maintenance of a child pending finalisaton of those proceedings. This problem arose as a result of the Pents v Ilsley judgment out of the South Gauteng High Court where the Randburg Maintenance Court (and thus any other court following the same procedure) was penalised for issuing Subpoenas to Respondents for their " First Appearance " at court. This " First Appearance " is an informal inquiry before a Maintenance Officer in terms of Section 6 of the Maintenance Act. In terms of the Regulations to the Act, this process is indeed the incorrect procedure. The nature of a Subpoena in terms of the Act is for the the purposes of calling upon the...
Read more

Can the Hague Convention help me see my child?

The ever-present problem of child abduction persists in many countries. “Abductions” has a wide meaning in terms of Child Law to include keeping a child away in another country from a parent who has rights to see his/her child. South Africa became a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction on 1 October 1997 (“the Convention”). Prior to the Convention, even if a parent had a court-ordered right to a child, it was exceptionally difficult to enforce that right outside of the Country which granted the order, being it of ‘access’ or ‘custody.’ The major limitation with respect to the Convention is that it is only applicable to countries who are signatories to it and whom therefore have an obligation to ratify the Convention into its own law. These countries are called “Contracting States.” This means that each country that agreed to abide by the Convention must create its own ‘local’ laws to give effect to the Convention, so that their o...
Read more