Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
19 November 2024 Photo Supplied
Siyanda Magayana
Siyanda Magayana, Senior Officer: Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Office, Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, University of the Free State.

Opinion article by Siyanda Magayana, Senior Officer: Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Office, Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, University of the Free State.


The growing unsafety of women in South Africa

 

As a woman living in South Africa, my daily routine is dictated by more than just work, social gatherings, or errands. It is also significantly dictated by fear; fear of, “will I make it home?”. As a result, I am not the dictator of my life; instead, the world around me shaped and dominated by men dictates how I must live. For instance, before I leave the house, I must make sure that my location is turned on, check in with at least two or more people, giving them details about where I am going, who I am meeting, and what I am wearing. This information serves as a distress signal in case something happens, as though my clothing, location, and/or companions should be catalogued in advance.

Again, as I move through public spaces, I must make sure to deliberately pass places with visible cameras, hoping they might deter anyone who sees me as prey, or at the very least, offer evidence if I were to disappear. In South Africa, and beyond, this is not a unique experience; it is the daily routine and reality for many women. We live on high alert, managing our fear as much as our lives. These steps are not taken out of paranoia but out of necessity, because in a world created for men, women must constantly adapt, shrinking themselves to fit within the boundaries of a system that refuses to protect them.

This is a terrifying reality that has become normal for so many. And the normalisation of such terror speaks to a much deeper global crisis. The world is becoming increasingly unsafe for women, and nowhere is this more apparent than in South Africa, where gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) have reached epidemic proportions, third-quarter crime statistics 2023/2024 report that, 851 women and 45 men were victims of rape while 137 women and 17 men were sexually assaulted . This is indicative of a global crisis on women’s safety and reality of violence. Subsequently, it reminds us that in world designed for men, women’s safety is not a guaranteed privilege; women are not safe in their homes, not safe walking the streets or in social media spaces.

The biggest question we ought to ask ourselves is why. Why, in an era of supposed progress and world-class continuation are women still subjected to such high levels of violence? Why should women continue to live in fear of their lives? Why, despite all the technological advancements and justice systems, does the world remain a battleground for women’s safety? The simple, yet complex, answer lies in a complex web of factors such as patriarchal norms, inadequate and ineffective legal and justice systems, and social complacency all of which allow violence to thrive. Therefore, we urgently need comprehensive solutions and efforts from all corners of society to address the scourge of violence in our society.

A shift in societal attitudes and norms

The fight against GBVF in South Africa is not just a social issue and law and enforcement issue. It is a phenomenon that requires addressing and shifting entrenched toxic norms and attitudes that perpetuate misogyny and entitlement over women. This fight, has over the years, shown us that we must look beyond the law; as a society, we ought to equally address the prevalent toxic cultural norms that perpetuate male entitlement and misogyny. We live in a society that still socialises and teaches men and boys to believe that they have dominion over women and objectify women’s bodies. This culture is similarly prevalent in all spheres of society, as result, we must invest in fostering a culture of consent education to shift toxic societal attitudes and norms. Institutions such as the media, and all other educational institutions, must likewise invest in a quest to reshape narratives that frequently blame victims and survivors of GBV.

Gaps in the legal and policing system

“Nearly 200 cops found to be perpetrators of GBV,” according to a report on the Domestic Violence Act and Police Station Census conducted between October 2023 and March 2024 . Additionally, the research discovered that “no police station was found to be fully compliant in terms of implementation of the Domestic Violence Act (DVA) across all nine provinces”. Additionally, 59 instances of non-compliance were documented, with Gauteng reporting one, the Western Cape 20 cases, North West 15 cases, and the Free State 23 cases  .GBV is a horrifying reality in the nation, where those who are meant to enforce the law — both individuals and institutions — fail to do so. It is depressing that the very institutions that are supposed to protect against domestic violence (DV) are plagued by significant levels of non-compliance when it comes to reporting cases of DV and offenders inside the system, in a nation that is already dealing with worrisome rates and incidents of GBV. This further illustrates the necessity for the government to do more than make empty promises. The people who are supposed to safeguard us frequently ignore a concerning pattern and culture of violence and non-compliance. For many people, the police and the organisations they are supposed to support, and safeguard have turned into re-traumatising sites. Therefore, laws by themselves are insufficient if they are not upheld or supported by effective and compassionate law enforcement.

16 Days of Activism 2024

The 16 Days of Activism for No Violence against Women and Children Campaign (16 Days Campaign) is a United Nations campaign which takes place annually from 25 November (International Day of No Violence against Women) to 10 December (International Human Rights Day).


Other articles by Magayana

 

Harsh reality of revenge pornography: Time to take a stand against it

Opinion: Uganda’s anti-homosexual legislation erases and silences LGBTQ+ bodies and voices in African communities

How A Focus on Sexual Consent Can Create Safer University Spaces

Opinion: Gender-neutral language and titles can help create a more equitable playing field

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.

 

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