24 January 2007
The conviction, incarceration and release of Mr Tony Yengeni have enjoyed
considerable media and public debate covering a variety of matters including
some fundamental human rights issues. More recently however the decision by the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to investigate animal
cruelty charges has led to varied and diverse public reaction reminding us that
the challenge of being a nation 'united in it's diversity' is more than a
slogan but something that requires ongoing engagement and accommodation. The
slaughter of a bull as part of the cultural homecoming and cleansing ceremony
for Mr Tony Yengeni should lead to a criminal prosecution argue some. On the
other hand many others point out that it is an integral part of the customs,
culture and ancient traditions of the Xhosa people and should enjoy protection
in our constitutional democracy.
South Africa's human rights framework has been hailed as one of the most
progressive in the world. Apart from recognising and protecting traditional
civil and political rights (the right of expression, political rights, freedom
of movement), social and economic rights (education, healthcare, housing) it
also goes on to protect the rights of religious, cultural and linguistic
communities to practise their religion, speak their language and express and
articulate their culture. This is a fundamental right and one may argue goes to
very heart of defining the content of our identity and provides the moral and
ethical basis by which we relate to our world. The United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) Report on Cultural Liberty reminds us that 'cultural liberty
is a vital part of human development.' In the context of South Africa's own
history there was a deliberate and orchestrated process during the period of
colonialism and apartheid to relegate and denigrate the cultures, languages and
the heritage of the large majority and to assert a predominantly Western
viewpoint of the world. The current constitutional dispensation seeks to
address this historic neglect but it would be na�ve to assume to it comes
without its own challenges.
Culture and tradition important as they are in the lifeblood of communities
are also not static and are capable of and indeed have evolved over time. Just
as we should allow the space for the expression and manifestation of our rich
and diverse cultural and customary practices, we should guard against the risk
that culture and custom become the justification for practices that militate
against the very heart and soul of our constitutional order. We cannot allow
the abuse and the oppression of women in the name of culture just as we cannot
allow the sexual exploitation of women and children in the name of free
expression. We should accordingly demonstrate a willingness to interrogate that
which we do, whether we do it in the name of our religion, our culture or our
understanding of our rights framework .Our rights framework exists in a context
and while it follows universal norms and principles it must resonate in the
lives of ordinary people and advance what one may term the public good.
Apart from the issues raised in the current debate there have been and will
continue to be many instances where our society grapples to find common ground
where culture, tradition and religion express themselves. The wearing of a
headscarf to work, a nose ring worn as part of the religious identity of a
young girl, a religious group refusing a blood transfusion for a minor child in
a life threatening situation are some of the cases that come to mind. In all of
this, there is not and cannot be some mechanical solution or indeed one that is
based on an entrenched and singular worldview. One of the legacies of our past
is that we never came to know, understand or indeed experience the diversity
that makes up our nation. The result was that out of that ignorance came the
creation of harmful myths, assumptions and stereotypes of the other and these
continue to live in the minds of many, shaping their views and informing their
public pronouncements.
In the search for solutions and for common ground we should guard against
the ongoing marginalisation of communities simply on account of their language,
culture or religion. In this regard the view of the South African Human Rights
Commission is that we need to engage in serious dialogue about the role and
place of culture in our lives and how it finds accommodation in the
architecture of our constitution. We would in such a discussion also have to be
willing to discuss the parameters of cultural practices and the effects of what
we may term harmful cultural practices.
These may appear to be formidable challenges but they are not
insurmountable. In moving forward we should once again reflect on the
injunction and caution in the UNDP Report. It reminds us that "People want the
freedom to practise their religion openly, to speak their language, to
celebrate their ethnicity or religious heritage without fear of ridicule or
punishment or diminished opportunity. People want the freedom to participate in
society without having to slip off their chosen cultural moorings. It is a
simple idea but profoundly unsettling."
Jody Kollapen
Chairperson
South African Human Rights Commission
For further information, please contact:
Media and Communications Unit
SA Human Rights Commission
Tel: (011) 484 8300 ext 2092
Fax: (011) 484 8403
Issued by: South African Human Right Commission
24 January 2007
