A critique on South African Police Services v Solidarity obo Barnard in relation to inequality

Abstract

All forms of discrimination are prohibited in terms of the South African Constitution. This prohibition also extends to the labour arena. Any forms of discrimination in the workplace are prohibited. There is a general view that all people in the employment sphere should be treated with fairness and equally at all times. South Africa is not an island. The country is a member of the international community and a signatory to international conventions which are structured to ensure that the rights of citizens of the world are upheld. South Africa as an international companion is bound by international laws as a signatory to the sources of these laws and as prescribed by the Constitution. The South African judges must consult international law sources whenever they are dealing with the interpretation of human rights clauses. In so far as discrimination is prohibited, there is a form of discrimination that is not prohibited, namely, the implementation of affirmative action policies. Affirmative action policies are policies that are accepted to advance those persons who were previously disadvantaged. This policy empowers them to compete with those persons that previously were advantaged. It seeks to achieve substantive equality and is therefore not accepted as unfair discrimination. In this mini-dissertation, the researcher evaluates the Constitutional Court’s decision in the matter of South African Police Services v Solidarity obo Barnard. The study assesses and critically analysis how the court decided the matter and it evaluates the reasons advanced by the Honourable Court