To: Constant Reader who wrote (353 ) 10/27/1999 3:22:00 PM From: E Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 410
I just tried to put up the link to the article in the Financial Times, but the window filled with code! I wonder why. Anyway, here is, pasted, a pathetic piece that could be subtitled Political Correctness Gone Mad. Though I know it's more complicated and sadder than that. ------------------- South African employers fear new laws By Nicol Degli Innocenti in Johannesburg South African companies are bracing themselves for a wave of litigation from disappointed job candidates under sweeping new anti-discrimination legislation submitted to parliament in Cape Town yesterday. The new Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination bill seeks to widen the field of illegal discrimination beyond race, sex, religion and physical disability. The bill lists 25 categories, which include education, married status and socio-economic standing, and "any other ground". The bill has been given the green light by the cabinet and, if approved by parliament, will come into effect next February. Penuell Maduna, justice minister, said the objective of the bill was "the total transformation of society from one characterised by the inequalities and injustices inherited from apartheid to one where the universal principles of equality, fairness, justice and human dignity apply to every one". Special "Equality Courts" will be set up from next year at every High Court and Magistrates' Court in South Africa to adjudicate disputes. They will have the power to award damages or order a settlement. There is, however, a right of appeal to the High Court. The justice minister warned that "the punishment will be severe". Businesses, companies or financial institutions can have their licences to operate withdrawn if their discrimination record is not deemed satisfactory. Companies found guilty may also be blacklisted by the State Tender Board. Two aspects of the legislation, which has been drafted by the Justice Department and by the Human Rights Commission, are particularly controversial. One is the reversal of the onus of proof, which will lie with the respondent. Those accused of discrimination will be assumed guilty until they can prove their actions were "reasonable and justifiable". The opposition Democratic party has promised to fight the bill in parliament. Tony Leon, its leader, said the bill "tramples all over other worthwhile principles, such as the right to privacy, freedom of speech and the presumption of innocence". There is also serious concern in South Africa that the law may be open to abuse and lead to witch-hunts, as the concept of "unfair" discrimination is by no means clear-cut. If a bank refuses a loan, a landlord a lease contract, an insurance company cover to anyone because unemployed or destitute, they can be sued for unfair discrimination. The employers' group Business South Africa admits to being "very concerned" and hopes that provisions will be subject to "extensive negotiation". Other business and employer representatives were reluctant to speak on the record for fear of appearing unwilling to embrace the philosophy of the "new South Africa". Another controversy is brewing over whether some clauses of the bill violate freedom of expression, which would make them unconstitutional. The media, for example, will not be allowed to refer to someone as "black", "female", "wheelchair-bound" or even "married" without obtaining that person's prior consent. [Edit: Capital will fly out of RSA faster than it already is.-- E]