When policy isn’t enough: Examining accessibility of sexual and reproductive health rights for displaced populations in South Africa
Posted: 21 December, 2020 Filed under: Lidya Stamper | Tags: abortion, CEDAW, clinic, discrimination, displaced, Displaced Populations, gender inequality, IDP, IDPs, International Organization for Migration, IOM, Johannesburg, migrant populations, policy, poverty, public health, public health system, reproductive health, sexual and reproductive health rights, sexual health, South Africa, SRHS, UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement 2 Comments
Author: Lidya Stamper
Research Fellow, Centre of Human Rights, University of Pretoria
The right to sexual and reproductive health services (SRHS) is a fundamental human right for all, guaranteed under international human rights law. Legal protections outlining these rights have been recognised in South Africa through international, regional and domestic instruments. More specifically, these protections are highlighted and specified in documents such as the ‘Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women’ (CEDAW), the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol), and the 1996 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Despite the presence of these legal frameworks, outlining equality and non-discrimination, persistent inequalities continue to act as barriers to exercising SRHS. Legislative and policy advances in SRH have been undermined by a lack of successful implementation and improvements in service delivery, service accessibility, and service availability. Implementation challenges combined with a fragmented health sector have resulted in various obstacles including a lack of standardised care, gaps in the dissemination of information, overburdened health facilities, and provider opposition. Social conditions such as gender inequality, poor access to health services, and provider attitudes continue to reinforce these barriers, undermining many of the intended outcomes of the existing legislative and policy advances in the SRH realm.
The scourge of homelessness and evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic in the City of Johannesburg
Posted: 6 May, 2020 Filed under: Bonolo Makgale | Tags: ANC, arbitrary evictions, attachment orders, City of Johannesburg, constitution, COVID-19, DA, demolitions, electoral promises, essential services, evicted from their home, Geoff Makhubo, home demolished, homelessness, ILO, informal settlements, Johannesburg, Lakeview settlement, Lindiwe Sisulu, lockdown, No legislation, pandemic, poverty, Red Ants, right to housing, South Africa, South African Constitution, temporary housing Leave a comment
Author: Bonolo Makgale
Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria
Introduction
After confirming the country’s first COVID-19 case on 5 March, South Africa braced itself for a 21-day lockdown, which officially began on 26 March and was initially intended to last until 16 April. The lockdown was subsequently extended to 30 April and has been further extended indefinitely with relaxation of some of the restrictions and some sectors of the economy being allowed to reopen, along with the extension of certain socio-economic relief mechanisms intended to cushion citizens from the hardships that the pandemic is sure to induce. In this light, one of the regulations included a moratorium on evictions, with the understanding that evictions would place vulnerable persons at risk of contracting and transmitting the virus. The provision stipulates: “All evictions and executions of attachment orders, both movable and immovable, including the removal of movable assets and sales in executions, is suspended with immediate effect for the duration of the lockdown.” These regulations were aimed at minimising possible losses of income, particularly among the working class and people in the informal sector.
AfricLaw 