Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Gender-based violence and COVID-19: A South African paradox

20 August 2020 | Story Dr Nadine Lake | Photo Supplied

DrNadineLake_read more — Dr Nadine Lake is a lecturer and Programme Director of the Gender Studies programme in the Centre for Gender and Africa Studies

The transition to democracy in South Africa has been characterised by an uphill battle towards equality. Inequalities shaped by race, gender, and class politics have been amplified since the outbreak of COVID-19. While South Africans initially thought they might be spared the devastation wrought by the virus, it is now certain that nobody is immune, regardless of race, class, age, gender, or social location. In an unprecedented manner, South Africans have become accustomed to hearing from government through President Cyril Ramaphosa’s state addresses on COVID-19 and its spread throughout the country. Although the initial national addresses were regarded as a panacea for some in a time of uncertainty, they are increasingly considered ignorant of broader human rights and the future of the populace. The South African situation is different from those struggling with the pandemic in the Global North, because of structural inequalities that have exacerbated an already precarious outlook on the economic and social stability of the country.

Gender-based violence needs immediate attention

In addition to recently emphasising a zero-tolerance attitude towards corruption in South Africa, President Ramaphosa surprised the nation when he emphasised that our country is dealing with two pandemics. First, COVID-19 has laid bare the slow pace of economic transformation and a crumbling health infrastructure. Second, gender-based violence has emerged as something that needs immediate attention. While it is true that gender-based violence has been and remains a burning issue in the country, it is important to identify the paradox that exists between the liberal agenda couched in the language of women’s rights on the one hand, and the blind eye turned towards slow economic transformation and high unemployment on the other. This emphasis on a liberal political agenda during a time of crisis is not new and has formed part of what we have come to know as political pinkwashing in Western democracies. Pinkwashing has been defined as a practice whereby states seek to create a more positive image of their nation, government, and human rights record, among other things, by speaking about and promoting LGBT rights (Lind, 2014, p. 602). While the African National Congress (ANC) may not be ready to fly the rainbow flag, it is worth noting the tensions between human rights and women’s rights, which have become part of political discourse, or more accurately, politicking.

GBV and rape culture part of the social fabric

South Africa is reported as the country with the highest rape statistics in the world. In 2018/2019, the South African Police Services reported 52 420 cases of sexual offences. Non-profit organisations such as the One in Nine Campaign, however, highlight that only one in nine women report a sexual offence, and therefore a realistic estimate is likely much higher than the recorded statistics. Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by the South African Medical Research Council, one in four South African men have admitted to committing rape. These statistics demonstrate that gender-based violence and rape culture form part of the social fabric and that women are disproportionately affected by violence. In the first week of the South African lockdown, more than 87 000 cases of gender-based violence complaints were reported. One of the rape cases that received prominent media attention during the first phase of the lockdown, was that of a police officer who raped his wife. The Minister of Police, Bheki Cele, quickly gained the reputation of a rape apologist when he stated that the man who raped his wife was her husband and not the police, because he was not in a police uniform, and the rape did not happen at the police station. This absurd response reinforces common rape myths and reduces the seriousness of sexual offences. Although opposition political parties such as the Democratic Alliance (DA) have called for the removal of Minister Cele, who was deemed unfit for office, these calls have fallen on deaf ears. The message conveyed is that men in positions of authority are exempt from punishment and speak and act with impunity when it comes to sexual violence.

#MeToo

Gender-based violence and rape is not specific to South Africa. The normative position of violence against women is widespread and deeply entrenched in institutions, cultures, and traditions worldwide. Movements such as #MeToo, which emerged in 2017 as an outcry against sexual violence and abuse, gained rapid momentum and started to see the prosecution of sexual predators such as Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein in the United States. The global solidarity against sexual abuse shown by women on social media has shown that relentless pressure on patriarchal systems forces accountability, and refuses men permission to perpetrate violence against women with impunity.

As we reflect on Women’s Month 2020 in South Africa, it is necessary to observe a moment of silence to victims of sexual abuse and femicide. We pay respect to Fezekile Khuzwayo, Uyinene Mrwetyana, Tshegofatso Pule, Naledi Phangindawo, Nompumelelo Tshaka, Nomfazi Gabada, Nwabisa Mgwandela, Altecia Kortjie, and Lindelwa Peni, and the many other women who have suffered misogynistic violence. Women’s Month provides us with the opportunity to take hands and speak out against the micro-aggressions and brutal acts of gender-based violence that should not form part of what we define as a truly democratic South Africa.

Opinion article by Dr Nadine Lake, lecturer and Programme Director of the Gender Studies programme in the Centre for Gender and Africa Studies, University of the Free State

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points

2004-07-29

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept