Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in South Africa have the same legal rights as non-LGBT people. South Africa has a complex and diverse history regarding the human rights of LGBTQ people. The legal and social status of between 400,000 to over 2 million lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex South Africans has been influenced by a combination of traditional South African morals, colonialism, and the lingering effects of apartheid and the human rights movement that contributed to its abolition.
Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa contains the Bill of Rights, a human rights charter that protects the civil, political and socio-economic rights of all people in South Africa. The rights in the Bill apply to all law, including the common law, and bind all branches of the government, including the national executive, Parliament, the judiciary, provincial governments, and municipal councils. Some provisions, such as those prohibiting unfair discrimination, also apply to the actions of private persons.
Homophobic propaganda is propaganda based on homonegativity and homophobia towards homosexual and sometimes other non-heterosexual people. Such propaganda supports anti-gay prejudices and stereotypes, and promotes social stigmatization or discrimination. The term homophobic propaganda was used by the historian Stefan Micheler in his work Homophobic Propaganda and the Denunciation of Same-Sex-Desiring Men under National Socialism, as well as other works treating the topic.
National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Prior to that time, there were few legal protections for human rights. The protections which did exist focused on specific issues, rather than taking a general approach to human rights.
National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits. It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.
Section Nine of the Constitution of South Africa guarantees equality before the law and freedom from discrimination to the people of South Africa. This equality right is the first right listed in the Bill of Rights. It prohibits both discrimination by the government and discrimination by private persons; however, it also allows for affirmative action to be taken to redress past unfair discrimination.
The Discriminatory Legislation regarding Public Amenities Repeal Act, 1990 is an act of the Parliament of South Africa that repealed legislation permitting racial segregation in public facilities: principally the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, 1953 and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Amendment Act, 1960, but also related sections of other acts as well as provincial ordinances.
South African constitutional law is the area of South African law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa by the country's courts. All laws of South Africa must conform with the Constitution; any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.
South Africa is a secular state, with freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution.
Hoffmann v South African Airways is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of South African labour law and constitutional law. It concerned employment discrimination on the basis of HIV status and was decided on 28 September 2000.
Intersex people in South Africa have some of the same rights as other people, but with significant gaps in protection from non-consensual cosmetic medical interventions and protection from discrimination. The country was the first to explicitly include intersex people in anti-discrimination law.
Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.
The Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill is a bill aimed at reducing offensive speech and curbing hate crimes in South Africa. The Bill was introduced in 2016 and sits before the South African National Assembly. Some of the stated intentions of the legislation include to "provide for the prevention of hate crimes and hate speech" and to "provide for effective enforcement measures" against those who express their "prejudice or intolerance towards the victim." The bill has been subject to much debate, with some groups expressing concern over the implications of restricting speech. Others have contended that the bill is necessary given the level of discrimination in South Africa and the decades-long Apartheid years before 1994.
Hate speech is public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".
Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another is a 2021 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the constitutionality of a statutory prohibition on hate speech. The court found that section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 was unconstitutional insofar as it included the vague term "hurtful" as part of the definition of prohibited hate speech.
Harksen v Lane NO and Others is an important decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, delivered on 7 October 1997. The court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of the Insolvency Act, 1936, finding that it was consistent with the right to property and right to equality for the property of a solvent spouse to be attached to the insolvent estate of his or her partner. Justice Richard Goldstone wrote for the majority.
Freedom of expression in South Africa is guaranteed in section 16 of the Constitution of South Africa. This right to freedom of expression, which is regarded as being of fundamental importance to South African constitutional democracy, was first recognised in the Interim Constitution of 1993. The right is not unqualified — certain forms of expression fall outside of the ambit of section 16(1), and the right is capable of limitation in accordance with the general principles of South African constitutional jurisprudence. Application of the right to freedom of expression by the courts has had a considerable impact on, amongst other fields, South African criminal law, defamation law and trademark law.
South African Human Rights Commission obo South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Masuku and Another is a 2022 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the statutory definition of hate speech. The court held that criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism may amount to anti-semitic hate speech but, in other contexts, may be distinguishable from the same. Its judgment, written by Justice Sisi Khampepe, was handed down unanimously on 28 June 2022.
