Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
24 March 2022 | Story Portia Arodi | Photo Supplied
Portia Arodi
Portia Arodi, Interdisciplinary Master’s in Human Rights, Free State Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law

Opinion article by Portia Arodi, Interdisciplinary Master’s in Human Rights, Class of 2022 Free State Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of the Free State.
Human Rights Day means different things to different people. For some people, Human Rights Day means commemorating the day of the 1960 massacre when 69 people were shot and killed by police in Sharpeville.   In my opinion, Human Rights Day not only symbolises the historical events that occurred in 1960, but it also provides evidence of the inequalities that currently exist in South Africa.   The labour market in South Africa is still racialised and gender biased. The black majority in the labour market earns way less than their white counterparts, even though both are immersed in the same working conditions. According to Statistics South Africa (2015), the differences in the income of South Africans remain heavily racialised. Furthermore, since 1994, bridging the gap between gender and race continues to be a struggle. On the other hand, black women experience the same inequalities as their male counterparts. The difference is that black females are subject to double discrimination, based not only on their race, but on their gender as well. Despite occupying the same positions as males and assuming similar duties and workload, their salaries remain low. 
  
Human rights in an unequal society

On the other hand, for some categories of people – namely the elite and those in power – Human Rights Day amounts to a democratic South Africa, a country where the constitution is the supreme law of the land and where everyone (without exception) enjoys freedom and human rights. For this particular section of the ruling class and elite, Human Rights Day attests to the effective transition from the apartheid era to a democratic society characterised by freedom, equality, and dignity for all.

For those who lack access to basic needs such as water, food, shelter, health care, electricity, and sanitation, their perception of Human Rights Day may be very different, as they live in poverty with no promising future prospects.  In fact, for the larger section of the population, democratic South Africa is nothing but a burden that does not have much to offer.  Indeed, how to explain that in 2022, the black majority still relies on the bucket system for sanitation; how to understand that to date, they still survive in squatter camps and go through days and nights on an empty stomach? 

It is my contention that the celebration of Human Rights Day has failed to consider a holistic approach to highlighting and raising awareness on critical issues, including poverty and inequality. The realisation of socio-economic rights by authorities exists only on paper but is yet to be done effectively. The provision of service delivery, health-care services, infrastructure, the right to food, education, and other basic needs remains characteristic of modern South African society. From this perspective, it means that we are celebrating one part while neglecting the other.

Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when there are still children studying under trees?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when there are children going to school without food?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when there are children who are not able to go to school or receive basic education?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when racism is still occurring in our schools and workplaces?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when children are being raped by their teachers at school?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when some universities are still using Afrikaans as their primary language?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when our students are being deprived of education due to the mandatory vaccination policy?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when white privilege still exists among university students?

Is Human Rights Day still worth commemorating?

What are we celebrating on Human Rights Day?  Are we celebrating the achievements of the minority population? Are we celebrating the few changes that have occurred since the advent of a democratic South Africa? Are we celebrating the Fees Must Fall movement that occurred in a contest where some students who were fighting for free education were arrested, shot, and even killed? Are we simply referring to what occurred in 1960? Why are we not celebrating the Fees Must Fall movement? Why are we not celebrating the Rhodes Must Fall movement? Why are we not celebrating the Steyn Must Fall movement? 

On 21 March 2022:

We need to celebrate the Fees Must Fall movement.  
We need to celebrate the Rhodes Must Fall movement.
We need to celebrate the Steyn Must Fall movement.
We need to fight for the voiceless. 
We need to get commitment from government to abolish the use of the bucket system.
We need to get a commitment from government to build more schools, hospitals, shelters, roads, and other infrastructure.
We need to get commitment from government to hire more teachers. 
We need to get commitment from government on protection against racism that occurs in schools and universities. 

We need to get commitment from government regarding the abolition of the mandatory vaccination policies at universities.

On Human Rights Day, let us evaluate whether the Constitution of South Africa is protecting and safeguarding the rights of all human beings, irrespective of their gender, race, ethnic group, socio-economic status … etc.  Is this the democratic South Africa we would want our children and great-grandchildren to have in 50 years? If not, then we have a responsibility to find better ways in which the Constitution of South Africa functions as intended. 

News Archive

Prof Antjie Krog speaks on verbalising revulsion and the collusion of men
2015-06-26

From the left are Prof Lucius Botes, UFS: Dean of the Faculty of the Humanities; Prof Helene Strauss, UFS: Department of English; Prof Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, UFS: Trauma, Forgiveness and Reconciliation Studies; Prof Antjie Krog, UCT: Department Afrikaans and Dutch; Dr Buhle Zuma, UCT: Department of Psychology. Both Prof Strauss and Dr Zuma are partners in the Mellon Foundation research project.

“This is one of the bitterest moments I have ever endured. I would rather see my daughter carried away as a corpse than see her raped like this.”

This is one of 32 testimonies that were locked away quietly in 1902. These documents, part of the NC Havenga collection, contain the testimonies of Afrikaner women describing their experiences of sexual assault and rape at the hands of British soldiers during the South African War.

This cluster of affidavits formed the foundation of a public lecture that Prof Antjie Krog delivered at the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Bloemfontein Campus on Tuesday 23 June 2015. The lecture, entitled ‘They Couldn’t Achieve their Goal with Me: Narrating Rape during the South African War’, was the third instalment in the Vice-Chancellor’s Lecture Series on Trauma, Memory, and Representations of the Past. The series is hosted by Prof Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, Senior Research Professor in Trauma, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation Studies at the UFS, as part of a five-year research project funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Verbalising revulsion

The testimonies were taken down during the last two months of the war, and “some of the women still had marks and bruises on their bodies as evidence,” Prof Krog said. The victims’ words, on the other hand, struggled to express the story their bodies told.

What are the nouns for that which one sees? What words are permissible in front of men? How does one process revulsion verbally? These are the barriers the victims – raised with Victorian reserve – faced while trying to express their trauma, Prof Krog explained.

The collusion of men

When the war ended, there was a massive drive to reconcile the Boers and the British. “Within this process of letting bygones be bygones,” Prof Krog said, “affidavits of severe violations by white men had no place. Through the collusion of men, prioritising reconciliation between two white male hierarchies, these affidavits were shelved, and, finally, had to suffer an embargo.”

“It is only when South Africa accepted a constitution based on equality and safety from violence,” Prof Krog said, “that the various levels of deeply-rooted brutality, violence, and devastation of men against the vulnerable in society seemed to burst like an evil boil into the open, leaving South African aghast in its toxic suppurations. As if, for many decades, we did not know it was there and multiplied.”

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