Zobrazeno 1 - 6
of 6
pro vyhledávání: '"Marelize Marais"'
Autor:
Marelize Marais
Publikováno v:
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol 26 (2023)
In its judgment in Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission 2022 2 BCLR 129 (CC), the Constitutional Court declared section 10(1) of the Equality Act unconstitutional and invalid to the narrow extent that section 10(1)(a) refers to the intenti
Externí odkaz:
https://doaj.org/article/0b73f5d15c1c4126b13a1e9f358f2441
Autor:
Marelize Marais
Publikováno v:
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol 24 (2021)
In this contribution, I argue that every person's duty to respect others is central to section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 ("the Equality Act"), otherwise known as the "hate speech" prohibi
Externí odkaz:
https://doaj.org/article/c383e6fea8d542a1ae1a23c1d66ccd42
Autor:
Marelize Marais, Jan Loot Pretorius
Publikováno v:
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol 22, Iss 2019, Pp 1-37 (2019)
This is a reply to a critique by Botha and Govindjee (2017 PELJ 1-32) of our interpretation of the hate speech provisions of the Equality Act (Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000) in Marais and Pretorius (2015
Externí odkaz:
https://doaj.org/article/f573c8c4f83644aea32a5de445b4e0d9
Akademický článek
Tento výsledek nelze pro nepřihlášené uživatele zobrazit.
K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.
K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.
Autor:
Marelize Marais
Publikováno v:
Southern African Public Law. 30:456-483
The clear-cut exclusion from constitutional protection of ‘hate speech’ contemplated by section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution is not per se concerned with the expression or promotion of hurtful or offensive discriminatory views, not even
Autor:
Marelize Marais, JL Pretorius
Publikováno v:
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol 18, Iss 4, Pp 901-942 (2015)
PER: Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad, Volume: 18, Issue: 4, Pages: 902-942, Published: 2015
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad; Vol 18, No 4 (2015); 902-942
PER: Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad, Volume: 18, Issue: 4, Pages: 902-942, Published: 2015
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad; Vol 18, No 4 (2015); 902-942
The article presents a detailed contextual analysis of the categorical prohibition of hate speech in terms of section 10(1) of the Equality Act. It is argued that this provision is not primarily intended to describe and effectively regulate the extre