Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Months
January February March April July May June August September October November December
Previous Archive
20 March 2023 | Story Prof Danie Brand | Photo Supplied
Prof Danie Brand
Opinion article by Prof Danie Brand, Director of the Free State Centre for Human Rights at the University of the Free State.
Opinion article by Prof Danie Brand, Director of the Free State Centre for Human Rights at the University of the Free State
What does it mean to say one has a right to something, such as access to housing or to protest or to property? What are human rights? What do they ‘do’?

One often hears of human rights being asserted as if they give one an absolute claim to something specific and discrete, which can be enforced against anything and everyone else, irrespective of the impact on the interests (and rights) of others, as well as broader public goals or values.

Perhaps the clearest example of this was the way in which the right to ownership of land was understood under apartheid property law. Ownership then was an absolutely exclusive right: it entitled its holders to exclude everyone else without a countervailing right from their land, irrespective of circumstance or context. All a landowner had to prove before a court to obtain an eviction order if they sought to evict someone from their land, was that they had the right (owned the land) and that those they sought to evict had no countervailing right in law to be on the land. If the right was proved in this way, the remedy of exclusion through eviction followed automatically – the court had to grant the eviction order.

Constitutional right to peaceful protest

A more recent example of this view was on display in the way in which members of parliament complained about their removal from the house when they attempted to shut down the President’s State of the Nation Address through protest action. Many responded by saying their removal was unjustified because, by trying to stop the address from proceeding, they were exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest. The assumption underlying this response is that the right to protest peacefully and unarmed entitles you to protest peacefully and unarmed in any way you see fit and regardless of the consequences for other people and for society at large.

With this view of rights, a right bestows on its holders a sphere of absolute inviolability – an abstract space within which they can do what the right entitles them to do (protest, hold property, speak, associate or whatever), subject to nothing and no-one else, with no limitations. Rights are seen as instruments through which to separate ourselves from other people and unilaterally impose our will and our interests on others. Rights operate as trumps, boundaries, conversation stoppers.

Understanding human rights

Fortunately, our constitution embodies a different vision or understanding of human rights. In various ways, our constitution makes it clear that what exactly our human rights entitle us to do, or have, or experience, is never abstractly fixed, immutable, or absolute, but must always be determined anew within context. Whenever we seek to exercise one of our human rights, its precise contours and limits must be determined in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time we seek to exercise it; the history of our country; the impact that our exercise thereof will have on the rights and interests of other people; and how our conduct in terms of the right aligns with the public interest and broader constitutional goals.

In this view of rights, our understanding of the right of ownership (which is of course not one of the human rights proclaimed in our constitution but is only indirectly protected in Section 25 of the Constitution) has been moulded into something entirely different from the apartheid conception. Landowners no longer have absolute, exclusive control over their land that simply arises from the fact that they have the right to ownership. If landowners today want to remove people occupying their land without any legal right to do so – in addition to and after proving their ownership – they must persuade a court that eviction would be just and equitable in light of all relevant circumstances (prevailing circumstances; interests of others, including the occupiers of their land; the public interest; constitutional goals) before they will succeed.

WATCH: The Power of Human Rights 




Building democracy

Likewise, if we seek to exercise our right to protest – in order to know what we would be entitled to do in terms of that right – we must consider how our protest will affect the rights and interests of others and whether that impact can be justified, and how the manner and form of our protest squares with constitutional goals such as building democracy. Equally, of course, if others object to our protest because of its impact on their rights and interest, they will have to contextualise their attempt to exercise their right to education, or academic freedom, or freedom of movement in light of our interests, the prevailing circumstances, the public interest, and constitutional goals such as fostering democracy, freedom of association, and freedom of speech.

That is, instead of rights in our constitutional order being abstract spheres of inviolability that can be exercised against others to protect or enforce our interests without consideration of context, keeping us apart, they are mechanisms to enable us to live together, to find accommodation between our disparate, perhaps conflicting, but often overlapping interests and concerns.

What is it then that our human rights do for us or entitle us to? Whenever our human rights-related interests are at stake, or if we rub up our fellow human beings with whom we cohabit the wrong way when our interests seem to clash, they entitle us to be taken equal account of. They require others (most importantly those in authority, usually the state) to include us and have concern for our interest, equal to the concern for others, in the conversation about what should happen and what we may or may not do. In this sense, rights do not keep us apart or stop conversations. Instead, they are acutely democratic mechanisms, making it possible for us to live together. ‘Only that?’, you may respond – but this is no small thing.

News Archive

UV vestig hom afgelope eeu as leier op verskeie terreine
2004-05-11

Michelle O'Connor - Volksblad - 11 Mei 2004

Ondank terugslae nou 'n 'gesonde volwassene'

HOEWEL die Universiteit van die Vrystaat (UV) vanjaar sy eeufees vier en met 23 000 studente die grootste universiteit in die sentrale deel van die land is, was dié instelling se geboorte glad nie maklik nie. MICHELÉ O'CONNOR het met prof. Frederick Fourie, rektor, oor die nederige begin van dié instelling gesels.

DIE behoefte aan 'n eie universiteit in die Vrystaat het reeds in 1855, kort ná die stigting van Grey-kollege, kop uitgesteek.

Grey se manne het hulleself teen 1890 begin voorberei om die intermediêre B.A.-eksamens af te lê. Dié eksamen het hulle toegang gegee tot die tweede jaar van 'n B.A.-graad aan die destydse University of the Cape Good Hope, nou die Universiteit van Kaapstad.

"Presidente F.W. Reitz en M.T. Steyn het destyds albei die stigting van 'n universiteit hier bepleit. Die grootste rede was sodat die seuns van die Vrystaat nie weggestuur word nie.

"Dié twee se droom is op 28 Januarie 1904 bewaarheid toe ses studente hulle onder dr. Johannes Bril, as hoof/rektor van Grey-kollege, vir die graad B.A. ingeskryf het. Dié graad is aanvanklik deur die Kaapse universiteit toegeken.

"Net die klassieke tale soos Latyns en Grieks, die moderne tale, Nederlands, Duits en Engels, filosofie, geskiedenis, wiskunde, fisika, chemie, plant- en dierkunde is aanvanklik aangebied.

"Die UV se geboue het gegroei van 'n klein tweevertrek-geboutjie wat nou naby Huis Abraham Fischer staan, en verblyf in die Grey-kollege se seunskoshuis," sê Fourie.

Volgens hom is die universiteit se eerste raad en senaat tussen 1904 en 1920 saamgestel. Die eerste dosente is aangestel en die eerste geboue opgerig. "Dié tyd was egter baie moeilik.

"Die instelling het teen 1920 net 100 studente gehad en was geldelik in die knyp. Daar was geen vaste rektor nie en geen vooruitgang nie. Vrystaatse kinders is steeds na ander universiteite gestuur.

"Ds. J.D. Kestell, rektor van 1920 tot 1927, het egter dié instelling finaal gevestig.

"Hy het self studente van oor die hele Vrystaat gewerf en geld by onder meer kerke en banke ingesamel. Kestell het selfs Engelse ouers oortuig om hul kinders na die Greyuniversiteitskollege (GUK) te stuur en teen 1927 het dié instelling met 400 studente gespog.

"In die tydperk tussen 1927 en 1950 het die GUK weer verskeie terugslae beleef.

"In dié tyd was dit onder meer die Groot Depressie en die Tweede Wêreldoorlog. Die armblanke-vraagstuk het regstreeks op studente en dosente ingewerk en die politieke onderstrominge van dié tyd het die instelling ontwrig.

"Die GUK het egter oorleef en die Universiteitskollege van die Oranje-Vrystaat (UKOVS) is in 1935 gebore," sê Fourie.

Hy sê in dié tyd is verskeie fakulteite gevestig en teen 1950 het die UKOVS met 1 000 studente gespog.

Teen 1950 het dit 'n onafhanklike universiteit geword en die naam is verander na die Universiteit van die OranjeVrystaat (UOVS).

Dié tydperk is gekenmerk deur Afrikaner- en blanke selfvertroue en heerskappy. Studentegetalle het tot 7 000 in 1975 gegroei en heelwat vooruitgang het in dié tyd plaasgevind.

"Tussen 1976 en 1989 sukkel dieuniversiteit weer met onder meer ekonomiese krisisse, die land se politieke onstabiliteit en word die UOVS geï soleer.

"Een ligpunt in dié tyd is die toelating van die eerste swart studente, die nuwe Sasol-biblioteek en die fakulteit teologie wat die lig sien.

"Tussen 1990 en vanjaar het die UOVS verskeie op- en afdraandes beleef. Die universiteit doen nie net die eerste stappe van transformasie nie, maar begin ook aan 'n beleid van multikulturaliteit werk.

"Die UOVS se naam verander in 1996 na die Universiteit van die Vrystaat/University of the Free State en in 2001 word die Sotho-vertaling bygevoeg.

"Geldelike druk en probleme neem drasties toe en personeel word gerasionaliseer.

"Teen 2000 begin die UV met 'n draaistrategie en studentegetalle neem tot meer as 23 000 toe," sê Fourie.

Hy sê die UV het die afgelope eeu nie net verskeie terugslae oorleef nie, maar homself ook op verskeie gebiede as 'n leier gevestig.

Die universiteit behaal sy eie geldelike mikpunte, neem 'n nuwe taalbeleid van veeltaligheid aan en herbelê in personeel.

Die instelling inkorporeer die kampusse van die Vista- en Qwaqwa-universiteit en groei internasionaal.

Die UV vestig ook fondamente van 'n institusionele kultuur van verdraagsaamheid, geregtigheid en diversiteit.

"Die baba het in die afgelope eeu 'n gesonde volwassene geword."

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