IRM1501
PORTFOLIO
SEMESTER 2 OF 2022
WITH DETAILED FOOTNOTES &
REFERENCING
BY ARIA
THE LAW TUTOR
Terms of use
By making use of this document, you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison, and reference
purpose,
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this
document as your own work
Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarize or misuse this
document.
, Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are
provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or
implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of reliance and use of
the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison,
research, and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold, or transmitted in any form or by any means.
IRM1501: EXAM PAPER OCT/NOV 2022
Read the case of Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another
[2021] ZACC 22, which is attached to this paper and thereafter answer the question
below. Provide a summary of the case in the prescribed manner (facts of the case,
legal question, ratio decidendi or reasons for the decision and the findings of the
case).
DO NOT copy directly from the case and remember to provide references for all
statements. Marks will be allocated for language use and correct referencing.
Plagiarismwillbepenalised. (10)
FACTS
The case was centered around an essay written by the applicant, Mr. Qwelane,
which was published in the Sunday Sun on July 20, 2008. "Call me names, but
homosexuality is not right," read the headline of the article, which featured a
cartoon equating gays to animals.1 The South African Human Rights Commission
(SAHRC), the first respondent, received 350 complaints in response to the story,
whilst the Press Ombud got 1,000 complaints. The Press Ombud investigated
these complaints and found that the Sunday Sun had broken the South African
Press Code three times. The publication was required to apologize adequately,
which it did.2
1
Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another [2021] ZACC 22 at para 2.
2
Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another [2021] ZACC 22 at para 6.
PORTFOLIO
SEMESTER 2 OF 2022
WITH DETAILED FOOTNOTES &
REFERENCING
BY ARIA
THE LAW TUTOR
Terms of use
By making use of this document, you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison, and reference
purpose,
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this
document as your own work
Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarize or misuse this
document.
, Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are
provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or
implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of reliance and use of
the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison,
research, and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold, or transmitted in any form or by any means.
IRM1501: EXAM PAPER OCT/NOV 2022
Read the case of Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another
[2021] ZACC 22, which is attached to this paper and thereafter answer the question
below. Provide a summary of the case in the prescribed manner (facts of the case,
legal question, ratio decidendi or reasons for the decision and the findings of the
case).
DO NOT copy directly from the case and remember to provide references for all
statements. Marks will be allocated for language use and correct referencing.
Plagiarismwillbepenalised. (10)
FACTS
The case was centered around an essay written by the applicant, Mr. Qwelane,
which was published in the Sunday Sun on July 20, 2008. "Call me names, but
homosexuality is not right," read the headline of the article, which featured a
cartoon equating gays to animals.1 The South African Human Rights Commission
(SAHRC), the first respondent, received 350 complaints in response to the story,
whilst the Press Ombud got 1,000 complaints. The Press Ombud investigated
these complaints and found that the Sunday Sun had broken the South African
Press Code three times. The publication was required to apologize adequately,
which it did.2
1
Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another [2021] ZACC 22 at para 2.
2
Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another [2021] ZACC 22 at para 6.
