IRM1501 FINAL EXAMINATION FOR SEMESTER 2- 2022

NAME:

STUDENT NUMBER:

UNIQUE NUMBER:

MODULE CODE: IRM1501

SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

ASSIGNMENT NUMBER: 03/ TAKE-HOME EXAMINATION

DUE DATE: 13 OCTOBER 2022




Honesty Declaration:


In writing and submitting this paper i affirm that:
1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and are aware of UNISA’s
policies in this regard.
2. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the
intention of passing it off as his or her own work.
3. I did not make use of another student’s work with or without permission
and submitted it as your own.


DATE:


SIGNATURE:

,Question 1




Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another
[2021] ZACC 22


Case details



In Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another the Constitutional
Court decided on the invalidity of section 10(1) of the Equality Act, which defines and
prohibits hate speech.



Facts of the case



In the above matter, a well-known newspaper columnist, 1 former anti-apartheid
columnist and talk show host Jonathan Dubula Qwalane (“Jon Qwalane”) wrote a
column article for the Sunday Sun titled “Call me names – but gay is not okay”. The
article included lines that read “making me wonder what these people have against the
natural order of things”, and “someday a bunch of politicians will muster the balls to
1
Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another [2021] ZACC 22 hereinafter referred
to as Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission.

, rewrite the constitution, otherwise at this rate, how soon before some idiot demands to
‘marry’ an animal, and that this Constitution ‘allows’ it?”. 2 The article was accompanied
by a cartoon illustration of a man marrying a goat. This sparked an uproar from the
public, and the South African Human Rights Commission was flooded with over 350
complaints.3 The feedback from members of the LGBTI plus community was prompt
and intense. The Johannesburg Pride board laid complaints with the Press Ombudsman
and the Human Rights Commission, while others called for a boycott of the newspaper
and its advertisers.4


The South African Human Rights Commission referred the complaints received to the
Equality Court, seeking an apology and damages from Qwelane. In response, Jon
Qwelane challenged the constitutionality of section 10(1). 5


Section 10(1) reads as follows:


“Subject to the proviso in section 12, no person may publish, propagate, advocate or
communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any
person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to:
(a) be hurtful;
(b) be harmful or to incite harm;
(c) promote or propagate hatred.”


He argued that section 10(1) read with sections 1 (which provides that It is not unfair
discrimination to take measures designed to protect or advance persons or categories
of
persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination or the members of such groups or
categories of persons),11 (which provides that no person may subject any person to
harassment), and 12 (which provides that no person may disseminate or broadcast any

2
Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission [3].
3
Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission [6].
4
Ibid.
5
Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission [8].