In democratic pluralistic and secular societies, freedom of religion is a fundamental right to be enjoyed by all individuals and religious organisations. A unique feature of this human right is the extent to which it is premised on a personal belief. The latter can be "bizarre, illogical or irrational", but nevertheless deserving of protection in the interests of freedom of religion. However, when the expression of a religious belief or practice transgresses the civil or criminal law it must be dealt with in the relevant legislative framework to hold the transgressor liable. Measures taken by the state to regulate religious bodies in terms of a general supervisory council or umbrella body are an unreasonable and unjustifiable interference with freedom of religion, and hence unconstitutional. I am of the view that the right to freedom of religion depends for its constitutional validity – and viability – on there being no interference (or regulation) by the state except in instances as provided for in terms of relevant legislation.
In and of itself a constitutional democracy is meaningless. It is the extent to which our rights as individuals in a pluralistic society are given effect and respected that brings to life the constitutionally enshrined values and principles. Religious diversity in a secular society acts as a catalyst of ingredients for conflict in the workplace. Specific legislation has been enacted to give effect to the right against unfair discrimination. Our courts have implemented and interpreted such equality legislation as imposing a duty of accommodation on the employer with regards to the employee’s religion. Our labour-law jurisprudence on transfers of business has recognized a duty offairness that cuts both ways in favour of the employee and employer. In operational requirement exercises the co-operation of both parties is required. In Canada, a duty of mutual accommodation has been utilized in religious discrimination cases. The current duty of accommodation should be extended to include a duty of mutual accommodation given that religious pluralism is a phenomenon affecting both employee and employer, thus enjoining both parties to engage in realistic measures to embrace diversity.
The Supreme Court of India and the Constitutional Court of South Africa, as apex courts, also function as guardians of the constitutions of each respective country. This article seeks to establish the extent to which judicial review in India and South Africa can be said to be more aligned with constitutionalism or undue activism. An assessment of the aforesaid is determined with regard to the transformative and progressive constitutional interpretation approach adopted by the aforesaid courts which also gives impetus to the living tree doctrine, the role that dignity plays in giving substantive meaning to democracy, ineptitude, and or corruption on the part of the executive precluding the effective realisation of socio-economic rights as well as parliament’s failure to hold members of the executive to account. The extent to which constitutionalism, as opposed to undue activism, has been advanced by the aforesaid courts is demonstrated with reference to specific cases.
Daar is in Suid-Afrika verskeie vrywillige godsdiensorganisasies. Hulle leerstellings het betrekking op geloofsgebaseerde aangeleenthede. Sodanige organisasies vervul ook funksies ten aansien van die bestuur van die kerk, die hiërargiese samestelling daarvan, administratiewe aangeleenthede, die gedragskode van lidmate en leraars en dissiplinêre optrede ingevolge huishoudelike tribunale. Die verhouding tussen die lidmate en die organisasie waartoe hulle hul vrywillig verbind het, is nie statutêr van aard nie. Die verhouding is gebaseer op die interne grondwet van die godsdienstige organisasie wat beteken dat die bevoegdhede wat byvoorbeeld uitgeoefen word deur dissiplinêre tribunale, gebaseer is op die instemming van die betrokkenes. Kragtens die bevoegdhede wat so verleen is, bestaan ’n ongelyke verhouding tussen die leierskap teenoor hulle lidmate en medeleraars. Dit bly egter ’n privaatregtelike verhouding en word geen publiekregtelike verhouding weens die magsverhouding nie. ’n Vergelyking kan gemaak word met administratiefregtelike verhoudings waar eweneens sprake van magsverhoudings is. Administratiewe verhoudings is openbare regsverhoudings, maar tog ook een van ongelykheid. Die staatsreg plaas die individu in ’n ondergeskikte verhouding teenoor die owerhede. ’n Lidmaat wat verontreg of gegrief is deur ’n besluit van die godsdienstige organisasie waarvan hy/ sy ’n lid is, kan sodanige besluit aanveg deur middel van die hersieningsprosedure waarvoor in die grondwet van die organisasie voorsiening gemaak word, maar kan ook bloot besluit om te bedank en uit die organisasie te tree. Dié bevoegdheid geniet ’n burger wat verontreg is deur ’n administratiewe vergryp van die owerheid, behoudens dan emigrasie, nie. Alhoewel die bevoegdhede wat binne ’n godsdienstige organisasie uitgeoefen word, gebaseer is op onderlinge instemming – en gereguleer behoort te word deur die interne grondwet van die vereniging – mag dit die moeite loon om kennis te neem van die beginsels van die administratiefreg in die lig van die omvang van gevestigde administratiewe regspleging. Die outeur ondersoek in hierdie artikel in die eerste plek private godsdienstige organisasies binne die bestek van die grondwetlike waarborge van indiwiduele en geassosieerde vryheid van godsdiens. Tweedens word gelet op die feit dat, nieteenstaande die private aard van die verhouding tussen lidmate en die vrywillige godsdienstige organisasie, ’n geregtelike hersiening van godsdienstige verenigings gebaseer op die gemenereg wel toepaslik mag wees. In ’n demokratiese bedeling leen nóg die Wet op die Bevordering van Administratiewe Geregtigheid, nóg artikel 33 van die grondwet dit tot geregtelike hersiening van administratiewe optrede. Met inagneming van die horisontale toepassing van grondwetlike beginsels en artikel 39(2) en (3) in die handves van menseregte en die ongelyke verhouding tussen die partye, ontstaan die vraag of breër verligting deur middel van administratiewe regspleging nie moet seëvier in gevalle van sodanige “private administratiewe regspleging” nie. Ten slotte ondersoek die outeur die beginsel van vermyding van leerstellige verstrengeling. Dit onderstreep die respek wat ons howe verleen aan godsdiensvryheid waarkragtens die howe hulle daarvan weerhou om in te meng in die sake van godsdienstige organisasies tensy dit buite die bestek van die tersake eie norme en riglyne soos vervat in die tersake grondwette val.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.