Latest News Archive

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

HUMAN RIGHTS MONTH: I have the right to …

20 March 2023 | Story Prof Danie Brand | Photo Supplied

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

Higher than expected prevalence of dementia in South African urban black population

2010-09-22

Prof. Malan Heyns and Mr Rikus van der Poel

Pilot research done by University of the Free State (UFS) indicates that the prevalence of dementia, of which Alzheimer’s disease is only one of the causes, is considerably higher than initially estimated. Clinical tests are now underway to confirm these preliminary findings.

To date it has been incorrectly assumed that dementia is less prevalent among urban black communities. This assumption is strongly disputed by the findings of the current study, which indicates a preliminary prevalence rate of approximately 6% for adults aged 65 years and older in this population group. Previous estimates for Southern Africa have been set at around 2,1%.

The research by the Unit for Professional Training and Services in the Behavioural Sciences (UNIBS) at the UFS and Alzheimer’s South Africa is part of the International 10/66 Dementia Research Group’s (10/66 DRG) initiative to establish the prevalence of dementia worldwide.

Mr Rikus van der Poel, coordinator of the local study, and Prof. Malan Heyns, Principal Investigator, say worldwide 66% of people with dementia live in low and middle income countries. It is expected that it will rise to more than 70% by 2040, and the socio-economic impact of dementia will increase accordingly within this period. 21 September marks World Alzheimer’s Day, and this year the focus is on the global economic impact of dementia. Currently, the world wide cost of dementia exceeds 1% of the total global GDP. If the global cost associated with dementia care was a company, it would be larger than Exxon-Mobil or Wal-Mart.

The researchers also say that of great concern is the fact that South Africa’s public healthcare system is essentially geared toward addressing primary healthcare needs, such as HIV/Aids and tuberculosis. The adult prevalence rate of HIV was 18,1% in 2007. According to UNAIDS figures more than 5,7 million people in South Africa are living with HIV/Aids, with an estimated annual mortality of 300 000. In many instances the deceased are young parents, with the result that the burden of childcare falls back on the elderly, and in many cases elderly grandparents suffering from dementia are left without children to take care of them. “These are but a few reasons that highlight the need for advocacy and awareness regarding dementia and care giving in a growing and increasingly urbanized population,” they say.

Low and middle income countries often lack epidemiological data to provide representative estimates of the regional prevalence of dementia. In general, epidemiological studies are challenging and expensive, especially in multi-cultural environments where the application of research protocols relies heavily on accurate language translations and successfully negotiated community access. Despite these challenges, the local researchers are keen to support advocacy and have joined the international effort to establish the prevalence of dementia through the 10/66 DRG.

The 10/66 DRG is a collective of researchers carrying out population-based research into dementia, non-communicable diseases and ageing in low and middle income countries. 10/66 refers to the two-thirds (66%) of people with dementia living in low and middle income countries, and the 10% or less of population-based research that has been carried out in those regions.

Since its inception in 1998, the 10/66 DRG has conducted population based surveys in 14 catchment areas in ten low and middle income countries, with a specific focus on the prevalence and impact of dementia. South Africa is one of seven LAMICs (low and medium income countries) where new studies have been conducted recently, the others being Puerto Rico, Peru, Mexico, Argentina, China and India.

Mr Van der Poel says participating researchers endeavour to conduct cross-sectional, comprehensive, one-phase surveys of all residents aged 65 and older within a geographically defined area. All centres share the same core minimum dataset with cross-culturally validated assessments (dementia diagnosis and subtypes, mental disorders, physical health, anthropometry, demographics, extensive non-communicable risk factor questionnaires, disability/functioning, health service utilization and caregiver strain).

The local pilot study, funded by Alzheimer’s South Africa, was rolled out through an existing community partnership, the Mangaung University of the Free State Community Partnership Programme (MUCPP).

According to Mr Van der Poel and Prof. Heyns, valuable insights have been gained into the myriad factors at play in establishing an epidemiological research project. The local community has responded positively and the pilot phase in and of itself has managed to promote awareness of the condition. The study has also managed to identify traditional and culture-specific views of dementia and dementia care. In addition, existing community-based networks are being strengthened, since part of the protocol will include the training and development of family caregivers within the local community in Mangaung.

“Like most developing economies, the South African population will experience continued urbanization during the next two decades, along with increased life expectancy. Community-based and residential care facilities for dementia are few and far between and government spending will in all probability continue to address the high demands associated with primary healthcare needs. These are only some of the reasons why epidemiological and related research is an important tool for assisting lobbyists, advocates and policymakers in promoting better care for those affected by dementia.”

Media Release
Issued by: Mangaliso Radebe
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2828
Cell: 078 460 3320
E-mail: radebemt@ufs.ac.za
21 September 2010

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