WEDNESDAY, 9 MARCH 2005 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

                                ____

The House met at 14:02.

House Chairperson Mr G Q M Doidge took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mev D VAN DER WALT: Voorsitter, hiermee gee ek kennis dat ek gaan voorstel dat die Huis die bevordering en die beskerming van al die amptelike tale in Suid-Afrika tydens ’n debat bespreek. Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans Notice of Motion follows.)

[Mrs D VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move that the House debates the promotion and protection of all official languages in South Africa. Thank you.]

Mr M WATERS: Chair, I hereby give notice that I shall move that this House debates the role of social grants in alleviating poverty. I thank you.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Chair, I give notice that I shall move on behalf of the ACDP that the House debates whether or not 16 Days of Activism is the most appropriate response to the unabated child and woman abuse in South Africa, and whether or not it drains or stimulates finances and resources needed to accurately address the problems and deliver relevant and desperately needed services. Thank you.

CONGRATULATIONS TO ERNIE ELS ON WINNING THE DUBAI DESERT CLASSIC GOLF
                             TOURNAMENT

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr M J ELLIS: Chairman, I move without notice:

  That this House –

1) congratulates Ernie Els on winning the Dubai Desert Classic Golf Tournament for the third time; and

2) recognises the excellent role he plays as an ambassador for our country.

[Applause.]

Agreed to.

             PROF S M MAYATULA TO PRESIDE DURING SITTING


                         (Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House elects Prof S M Mayatula to preside during today’s sitting of the House, when requested by a presiding officer to do so.

Agreed to.

                    ORDER OF PRECEDENCE:QUESTIONS

                         (Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move the first Motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

   That, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 29(8) and Rule 113,
   Questions shall not have precedence today.

Agreed to.

           HOURS OF SITTING OF EXTENDED PUBLIC COMMITTEES


                         (Draft Resolution)

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move the draft resolution printed in the name of the Chief Whip on the Order Paper, as follows:

  That, notwithstanding Rule 23, the hours of sitting of Extended Public
  Committees to consider Budget Votes will be as determined by the
  Programme Committee.

Agreed to.

DEBATE ON “THE ROLE OF PARLIAMENTS IN THE ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONING OF MECHANISMS TO PROVIDE FOR THE JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCING OF WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, GENOCIDE AND TERRORISM, WITH A VIEW TO AVIODING IMPUNITY”

Ms N M MAHLAWE: Chairperson, hon members, Judge Navanethem Pillay, in his address on African perspectives on universal jurisdiction for international crimes, which was held in Arusha in Tanzania, said:

  We are at a crucial crossroads. I believe it is a time for national
  parliaments and the international community to develop clear rules and
  approaches that should be taken to render the rule of law effective
  against oppressors who are on the run, or who are still too powerful
  to be prosecuted successfully in their own national courts.

He then calls for the provision of a uniform set of universal jurisdiction laws that will meet the challenges of prosecuting perpetrators of international human rights.

Without any doubt, the recurrence of immeasurable atrocities of the past would bring shame to the “never-again” undertaking of the Nuremberg era, to act as effective catalysts and revive the call for international criminal justice.

Events of unprecedented barbarism, unthinkable after the excesses of the Second World War, mass genocide in the Great Lakes region of Africa and ruthless ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, brought the idea of judicial enforcement to the forefront and paved the way to the era of international justice, which is predominantly concerned prominently with enforcing the now universally recognised human rights standards.

This is an era of international criminal justice, which follows articulation, codification and enshrinement of human rights in international instruments such as the Nuremberg and Tokyo charters, from which the concept of crimes against humanity emerged. I am talking here of the Geneva Convention, the Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments which target elimination of discrimination and torture.

Preceding this era, were the efforts of humanising war through law, which evolved beyond regulations on the conduct of hostilities to converge on a protection regime for the most vulnerable. Despite exposure of the world to gross human rights violations, states’ protectiveness of their own sovereignty made them reluctant to contemplate the inevitable yielding of exclusive power that would attach to the creation of a supernational forum.

Because states can only act to their officials, such officials themselves are granted attributes of the state, such as privileges and immunities, which construct sees these individual actors not engaging their own personal responsibility, but that of the state, with the convenient result that they could escape altogether any form of criminal accountability, at least outside their own borders.

This is a culture of impunity, as a result of which even those individual actors who perpetrate violations of human rights, whether in times of war or peace, are not brought to book. Today the global society is brutally affected by war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, which are all grave breaches of international law. Therefore, it is imperative for all parliaments of the world to ensure respect for human rights contained in various international instruments, which in effect ensure respect for human dignity. But despite the importance attached to the attainment of justice and all the existing mechanisms, which guarantee the protection of victims at national, regional and international levels, impunity still thrives in many societies without caution.

There is a growing world conviction that impunity will no longer be tolerated. States have concluded agreements to punish and prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and terrorism, and established corresponding penalties and mechanisms.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is the most striking milestone in the struggle for justice. The International Criminal Court is designed to ensure justice and dignity for the victims, the re-enactment of the rule of law, and fosters long-lasting national reconciliation and peace. The mandate for the International Criminal Court is to try cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after 2000 by all states that are party to this statute.

One hundred and twenty states of the United Nations adopted the treaty to establish a permanent international court in 1998. South Africa was the 23rd state to ratify the Rome Statute. Of importance is that the statute defines gender crimes more explicitly than before. These, inter alia, include rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilisation and other forms of sexual violence. Parliaments have a responsibility to enact rules for domestic implementation of these provisions of the International Criminal Court. This includes those parliaments that have not ratified the Rome Statute. All member parliaments of the International Parliamentary Union are urged to assume responsibility for implementing and enforcing, through enactment of national rules, the international agreements that have been concluded to punish and prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and terrorism, and to establish corresponding penalties and mechanisms to avoid impunity.

Elokugqibela ke, Sihlalo, ndicinga ukuba iya kuba nomdla into yokuba ndiyibeke imo yoMzantsi Afrika wethu ngokubhekisele kulo mbandela. UMzantsi Afrika wavumelana neKhonvenshoni yaseGeneva ejongene nokuphathwa kwamabanjwa emfazwe ukususela ngonyaka ka-1952. Kwakhona ngo-1998 uMzantsi wavumelana nokuthintelwa kwanokohlwaywa kwezenzo zobunqolobi ezibizwa ngokuba kukutshatyalaliswa kohlanga oluthile.

UMzantsi Afrika wavumelana nokuthintelwa kwentshutshiso kwanezinye izenzo ezithoba isidima sabantu okanye izohlwayo ezikwanjalo. Sele usisayinile isivumelwano saseRome esingeNkundla yaMazwe ngaMazwe ejongene nezenzo zobundlobongela. (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.) [Finally, Chairperson, I think I must clearly state the South African position with regard to this subject. South Africa reached an agreement at the Geneva Convention on the status of prisoners of war as long ago as

1. Again in 1998, South Africa agreed to prevent, and punish perpetrators of terrorist acts such as genocide.

South Africa agreed on preventing acts of persecution and other forms of crimes that degrade human dignity. A treaty on the International Criminal Court has been signed in Rome.]

Lastly, in our perception of a peaceful, safe and secured world, we must take cognisance of the daunting task facing the international community in its capacity as the moral guarantor of peace: the needs of those people to heal from bitterness, left behind by killings, distraction and dehumanisation, as we have seen in Iraq and other African states. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr R COETZEE: Chairperson, it is right that parliaments from around the world should unite against war criminals, perpetrators of genocide and terrorists, for they are destroyers of peace and enemies of civilization. They cause pain and bring death. They embody what is worst in humanity.

Sadly, our history is littered with examples of human beings brutalising each other. Indeed, history gives us no cause for complacency, for as we work for a world in which human beings treat each other with respect and decency, we must expect that there will be those who will continue to violate the humanity of others.

So, it is right that the parliaments of the world should stand shoulder to shoulder against those who wish to destroy all that is good in humanity. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations puts it, people all over the world want to know that humanity can strike back, that whatever and whenever genocide, war crimes or other such violations are committed, there is a court before which the criminal can be held to account; a court that puts an end to the global culture of impunity.

So, the DA supports the resolution that will serve before the International Parliamentary Union next month, which invites parliaments around the world to implement and enforce provisions to punish and prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and terrorism, to ratify the Rome Statute, if they have not done so, and to accede to the International Criminal Court.

However, in politics, good cannot simply be done through the signing of treaties, the passing of legislation and the establishment of courts. What is required, above all, is political will, for political will is the fuel that will drive our progress towards a more humane and just world. Where there is political will to do right, there right will be done.

No doubt, much will be said today of the decision by the United States to make use of a Bilateral Article 98 agreement to prohibit the surrender of United States persons to the International Criminal Court, unless it is with the consent of the United States. Indeed, if humanity is going to put up a united front against the agents of death and destruction, then every country needs to play a full and committed part in the development of the International Criminal Court.

However, what our Parliament needs to question critically today is whether we have done enough and whether we are playing our proper part in the global battle against the brutalisation of humanity. The truth is that we did not do enough. Indeed, we did very little while a million fellow Africans were slaughtered in Rwanda just over 10 years ago. Of course, we were meeting challenges of our own at the time but, still, we did not do enough.

Since then, we have not done enough while our neighbours in Zimbabwe were being beaten, raped, starved and murdered. Indeed, our government has failed us, has failed the people of Zimbabwe and has failed all of humanity by its failure to speak out and take action against a regime of human abuse in Zimbabwe.

Still further north, but still in Africa, the people of Darfur in the Sudan have been subject to brutalisation, starvation and murder. Some people like to quibble over the technical definition of genocide. We say that where people are being beaten, driven away from their homes and killed, governments like ours must speak out and act, yet when he visited the Sudan recently, President Mbeki could not find it within himself to condemn the atrocities in Darfur or call on Sudan to become a signatory to the Rome Statute.

There is a film that will reach our shores soon. It is called Hotel Rwanda, and relates the events that took place in that unfortunate country a decade ago. Let us not wait another 10 years for a film called Hotel Darfur before we face up to our own failure to fight for decency and justice in the Sudan.

At the International Parliamentary Union later this month, when we confront those who are reluctant to participate fully in the work of the International Criminal Court, let us do so from a position of moral authority, secure in the knowledge that we practise what we preach. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, at the end of this month the International Parliamentary Union will hold its 112th meeting. Practically, all parliaments of the world will be represented there, as will our Parliament under the leadership of Madam Speaker. Once again, matters of mutual interest will be discussed and one would accept that events such as the tsunami disaster will be debated and suggestions voiced on how we could avoid similar disasters. The South African delegation will voice the position of this Parliament. It is therefore necessary for the South African delegation to share with our colleagues the agenda that will be discussed. In this respect, I refer to the item on the Order Paper, which deals with the role of parliaments. It says: “The role of parliaments in the establishment and functioning of mechanisms to provide for the judgement and sentencing of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and terrorism, with a view to avoiding impunity.”

The question begs a definite answer. Therefore, we have to debate what roles parliaments can play and also have played so far. I wish to deal briefly with that question.

An HON MEMBER: [Inaudible.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Dumela mojapere. [Good day.]

We have to bear in mind though that in this respect, half a century ago, over 250 000 conflicts around the world have resulted in millions of people, most of whom are women and children, losing their lives, their rights, as well as their property and dignity. In only a few cases have the perpetrators of those atrocities been brought to justice.

Various steps have been taken by the international community and particular parliaments, as did this Parliament. We signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998 and lodged the instrument of ratification on 27 November 1998. We have done various other things. On 18 July 2002, we passed the implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act.

Terrorism is the topic that has seized the world’s attention ever since the 11 September 2001 attack in the US. South Africa has in fact taken concrete steps - whether that is enough is another question - to give effect to its international and continental obligations to combat terrorism. At the end of 2004, the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorism and Related Activities Act was passed. The purpose of the Act is, inter alia, to provide measures to prevent and combat terrorist and related activities; to provide for an offence of terrorism and other offences associated or connected with terrorist activities; to give effect to international instruments dealing with terrorist and related activities and various other points.

But all parliaments of the world have a responsibility to ensure that peace and security is promoted and protected within their borders, as well as internationally. To promote stability internally, parliaments should ensure that the democratic processes are put in place and guarded. Such processes could include, inter alia, the holding of regular free and fair elections; the promotion of respect for the political right of opposition parties; the promotion of tolerance and diversity; ensuring that women and minority groups are represented in parliament; ensuring that international human rights law instruments are ratified and that the necessary implementation mechanisms are put in place.

There is much more to be said about this subject and there is much more to be done, but I think I have outlined some basic steps taken by this Parliament which, according to some, may not be enough, but at least are a good start. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Mr G T MADIKIZA: Chairperson and hon members, shortly after the Second World War the international community came to understand the full extent of the genocide and other crimes against humanity perpetrated by Hitler. The words “never again!” were uttered and a United Nations Convention was adopted.

Sadly, however, since then six decades have elapsed with numerous such crimes against humanity being perpetrated. In that same period, the spectre of international terrorism has become a prevalent global occurrence. Whilst the attacks on America three years ago received sensational publicity, there have been equally terrible terrorist attacks in Russia, Africa, Europe and Asia.

The international ramifications and execution of these crimes require a united and integrated response from the governments and parliaments of the world. The UN conventions that have been adopted thus far especially require such a response.

The role of parliaments should not merely be confined to the creation of domestic mechanisms for the judgement and sentencing of these crimes. These domestic efforts must be co-ordinated, eventually to create a global legal framework that leaves no place to hide for such criminals.

Simultaneously, such a co-ordinated effort by all parliaments must seek to ensure that the pursuit of justice and protection against such crimes must not itself degenerate into, or even be abused for, the violation of basic democratic principles. An immediate example of this is the untenable and legally dubious Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay.

The extent that terrorism and genocide are political … [Time expired.] I thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Mr L W GREYLING: Hon Chair, the ID believe that the issue we are debating today is of prime importance for us both as a nation and continent. Apartheid was classified as a crime against humanity and only ten years ago we all witnessed the horror of the brutal genocide in Rwanda. As the world has become more globalised, so too have our problems. Only if we have concern for the wellbeing of all our neighbours can we truly call ourselves a global village. No longer can we adopt the attitude that what takes place in another country is simply that country’s internal affairs.

War crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and terrorism are stains on all of humanity’s conscience. It is clear, however, that some perpetrators of these atrocities, particularly those that hold state power, will try and define their actions differently. It is therefore imperative that we establish and strengthen existing international mechanisms that hold all of humanity accountable to a common definition of these atrocities. In doing this it is vital for parliaments, as representatives of the people, to engage in this debate and ensure that we can all reach a common understanding on this issue. Only in that way can we generate the country- level support necessary for these mechanisms to take effect.

In developing these mechanisms and ensuring that they are used effectively, we as a community of nations will be sending out a strong signal to those who commit atrocities that these actions will no longer go unpunished. The most marginalised groupings in the world, some of whom cannot depend on their own state structures for protection, will at least have the knowledge that the global community has the political will and authority to prosecute these criminals.

Prosecution is only the last step in the chain though, and we as the international community must do more to ensure that we are able to prevent these crimes from happening in the first place. Only in that way will we give credence to the statement “never again!” I thank you. [Applause.]

Dr G W KOORNHOF: Mr Chairperson and hon members, despite the fact that there were various treaties in the nineteenth and twentieth century on the laws of war, the twentieth century was the bloodiest century in human history – simply because people got away with it. Only in recent years has the international community set up structures to ensure that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished – no matter who committed them.

In South Africa it was only after our first democratic elections in 1994 that the issue of human rights was given prominence. A Bill of Rights was introduced as part of our Constitution, confirming what importance is placed on human rights and human dignity in our society. Before 1994 the previous government had a very skewed view on human rights, only applicable to a minority of our population.

As part of this debate I want to concentrate on international humanitarian law, or the rules applicable to warfare, also referred to as the law on armed conflict. Our Constitution responds to past failures with several provisions, designed to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law by our security services, in particular the SANDF.

Our White Paper on Defence, compiled in 1996, furthermore clearly states:

International law on armed conflict will enjoy primary consideration in
the preparation and execution of military operations.

Not surprisingly, we were one of the first countries to ratify the Rome Statute, creating the first ever permanent and independent International Criminal Court, with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals responsible for the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. This Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. To date, 98 countries are states parties to the Rome Statute, including 26 African states.

In February 2003 the Assembly of States Parties elected the 18 judges of the International Criminal Court. These judges constitute a forum of international experts that represents the world’s major legal systems. The International Criminal Court will not replace national courts. It will allow national courts the first opportunity to investigate or prosecute, and will thereafter only be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.

As the International Criminal Court deals with the most serious crimes, its trials may also involve victims of such crimes. Such victims may include child soldiers, rape victims or victims whose properties and livelihoods have been destroyed during fighting. For this reason, a victim’s trust fund has been established to channel money to victims either individually or collectively.

To date, three states parties have referred cases to the Office of the Prosecutor in the International Criminal Court, namely the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Uganda. A United Nations commission has recently recommended that war crime cases in Darfur, Sudan, be referred to the International Criminal Court. The United States of America vehemently opposed this. Not only has the United States continued to oppose the International Criminal Court, but also, in addition, has applied pressure on many countries to agree not to surrender or transfer US nationals to the International Criminal Court, in order to gain immunity for its citizens from this Court.

In terms of section 231(4) of our Constitution, we as Parliament adopted the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act, Act 27 of 2002. This Act of Parliament incorporates international humanitarian law norms into a national Act, to fulfil two objectives: Firstly, to fulfil the state’s obligation to investigate and prosecute the gravest international crimes committed in South Africa; and secondly, to provide for mechanisms in order to co-operate with international enforcement jurisdictions, including the International Criminal Court. We as a Parliament can therefore proudly say that we have taken a very important step in implementing the essence of the subject for discussion before us, namely the judgement and sentencing of the core crimes in the Rome Statute.

Members of our SANDF are being educated in international humanitarian law as part of their civic education programme for the armed forces since 1997. This programme aims to make a significant contribution to instil a common set of values in the Department of Defence. These values derive from our Constitution. This civic education programme in the military spells out the responsibility of every commander in relation to the law of armed conflict, during training and also in times of armed conflict. Every commander in the military is therefore responsible for the proper training of his or her troops in the law of armed conflict. Our men and women in uniform are being taught the general principles of the law on armed conflict, namely military necessity, prevention of unnecessary suffering and hostilities regulated by the law on armed conflict.

Each member of the SANDF is issued with a code of conduct card, which he or she carries on his or her person every day. On this card is also printed the rules of war, and the rules are clearly spelled out. Due to the fact that South Africa has ratified the Geneva Conventions, it implies that every member of the SANDF is subject to the law on armed conflict. Any grave breach – and there is a list of such acts – is regarded as a war crime and shall be repressed by penal action. We are obliged to prosecute or extradite those soldiers who have committed a grave breach of conduct.

As a signatory to the Rome Statute, members of the SANDF are schooled on the definitions and scope of these core crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. South Africa has brought the Ottawa Treaty on the Banning of Antipersonnel Mines into national law through the Prohibition of Antipersonnel Mines Act of 2003. The International Committee of the Red Cross acknowledges this as the international benchmark in today’s world.

Currently, we are also working on the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention to introduce a prohibition or a restriction on certain conventional weapons Bill, which will be a world first, comprehensive piece of legislation on this subject. I can conclude that South Africa is at the forefront to effectively implement international humanitarian law on our Statute Books.

I do not agree with Mr Coetzee when he says that we are not doing enough. I have just indicated to you how much this government and how much this Parliament – which he is a party to – has already done in this regard. We can safely say that South Africa is playing a leading role today on this subject that is before us today. [Applause.]

We have to congratulate the ANC government and this Parliament for the steps that we have already taken to apply the implementation of international humanitarian law in national legislation in South Africa. We are a leader in the world in this regard.

We as the ANC, in conclusion, want to honour our soldiers who are doing an excellent job in the rest of Africa in implementing the international humanitarian law and implementing legislation that we as this Parliament have put on the Statute Books. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, the ACDP supports the draft resolution to be considered by the IPU, that Parliaments have a primary responsibility in the prevention, punishment and avoidance of impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and terrorism.

Parliamentarians, undoubtedly, have a key role to play to ensure that domestic legal systems implement effective laws and remedies to fight impunity and complement the action of the ICC. The structure has been established and it is now incumbent upon parliamentarians to ensure that the Rome Statute is widely ratified by member states and to oppose attempts to undermine it.

Clearly, the ultimate objective of the ICC would be to serve as an effective deterrent to international crime. It is widely accepted in criminal justice theory that well-educated would-be criminals are often deterred by the certainty, or high probability, of punishment, which makes their criminal plan too risky and not effective enough. As stated at the 2004 conference on the Rome Statute in New Zealand, constant, swift and firm reminders by both NGO and government sources to vulnerable constituencies of serious personal legal implications and ramifications of any actions they may be contemplating remain an essential component of this international law.

If we are serious about the motion being considered by the IPU we should utilise the threat of ICC intervention to curb violence and break the cycle of impunity in current or future crisis situations, for example, those being experienced in the Darfur region of the Sudan and in Zimbabwe. Parliamentarians, as political leaders, should disseminate knowledge of the Rome Statute and implications for would-be perpetrators to discourage them from their courses of action.

Parliamentarians should also urge relevant international bodies, such as the UN, the EU and the AU to alert political and military leaders of the implications of their actions. Co-ordinated and concerted actions would lay the groundwork for the ICC as a force of deterrence. I thank you. [Time expired.]

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Prof S M Mayatula): May I appeal to the House to tone down their talking, please?

Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Geagte Voorsitter, die VF Plus huldig ook die standpunt dat daar uiteraard gekyk moet word na maniere hoe oorlogsmisdade gestraf kan word. Maar, as ons praat van oorlogsmisdade, dan moet ons ook baie keer sê daar is mense wat dit uit ‘n subjektiewe hoek beoordeel en dat dit nie noodwendig altyd in terme van ‘n objektiewe benadering wel ‘n oorlogsmisdaad is nie.

Die Afrikaner kan getuig van oorlogsmisdade as ons teruggaan na die Boere- oorlog toe. Dit was ‘n geval van vroue en kinders wat in konsentrasiekampe geplaas is, waarvan 27 000 vroue en kinders in konsentrasiekampe gesterf het, waar die velde afgebrand is, huise afgebrand is, diere gedood is, en dít in ‘n oorlogsituasie.

Dit was niks anders gewees as ‘n oorlogsmisdaad teen die Afrikaner nie. Daar word baie ophef gemaak oor ander oorlogsmisdade wat plaasgevind het, daar word verwys na die Jode, ensovoorts, maar ons moet nooit vergeet nie dat in ons eie land ook die Afrikaner deel was, en slagoffers was, van oorlogsmisdade. Daarom is die VF Plus ten gunste daarvan dat daar gekyk moet word na maniere.

Maar, ons moet ook sê dat baie keer moet daar gekyk word na wat die oorsake is van oorlog. Tans is daar ‘n internasionale debat aan die gang spesifiek betreffende terrorisme, en een van die interessanthede van dié debat, internasionaal in hierdie stadium, is dat hulle sê die enigste werklike effektiewe manier om terrorisme te voorkom, is om ‘n behoorlike demokrasie daar te stel. ‘n Demokrasie, is werklik ‘n demokrasie in die sin dat dit alle groeperings se demokratiese regte in ag neem – ook minderheidsregte – want ons kan hier praat, ons kan prosedures en meganismes daar stel, maar die uitdaging is werklik om te voorkom dat daar iets is wat oorlog laat uitbreek. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Chairperson, the FF Plus also maintains the standpoint that naturally ways in which war crimes could be punished must be examined. But, when we speak about war crimes, then in many instances we must also say that there are people who judge it from a subjective angle and that it may not necessarily always be a war crime from an objective point of view.

The Afrikaner can testify about war crimes if we go back to the Anglo-Boer War. It was a matter of women and children being interred in concentration camps, where 27 000 women and children died, where the fields were burnt, houses were burnt down, animals were killed, and that in a war situation.

This was nothing but a war crime against the Afrikaner. A much fuss is made about other war crimes that have taken place, reference is made to the Jews, etc, but we must never forget that in our own country the Afrikaner was also part of, and victims of, war crimes. That is why the FF Plus is in favour of methods being examined.

But, we must also say that often the reasons for war must be examined. At present there is an international debate specifically regarding terrorism, and one of the interesting aspects of this debate, internationally at this stage, is that they are saying the only really effective way of preventing terrorism is to establish a proper democracy. A democracy, is a true democracy in the sense that all the groups’ democratic rights are taken into consideration – also minority rights – because we can speak here, we can establish procedures and mechanisms, but the real challenge is to prevent these being reasons for war break out. I thank you.]

Mr I S MFUNDISI: Chairperson and hon members, all governments, regardless of how they ascended to power, yearn for security, peace and stability. Efforts have been made in South Africa to safeguard law and order with the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998, whose sole purpose is to ensure that human security links peace and stability with respect for the human rights of all. Parliaments are thus charged with the responsibility of ensuring that peace and stability prevail and are promoted.

With the establishment of the ICC on 1 July 2002, perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, in fact all pogroms are subject to prosecution. That is why the then warlords of Rwanda are being prosecuted. It is unfortunate that the ICC’s jurisdiction is not retroactive; otherwise, those who called themselves the master race in South Africa would face the music because of the crime against humanity, namely apartheid.

We in South Africa have to hold our heads high in the company of the nations of the world, because through this Parliament, we signed the Rome Statute in July 1998 and lodged our instrument of ratification on 27 November 2000. All that remains is for this Parliament to ensure that the agreement on privileges and immunities of the International Criminal Court is signed.

This is in stark contrast to what the belligerent President George W Bush of the United States set out to do in 2000, to unsign the Rome Statute that was signed by his predecessor, Bill Clinton, in December 2000. America is not alone in this negativism. Russia, India and Israel are also opposed to the Rome Statute as they argued that its obligation compromises their sovereignty.

To ensure that we are not doing a disservice to our commitment to world peace and order, last year this Parliament, passed the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Bill, which, amongst others, aims to provide measures to prevent and combat terrorism and related activities; and to give effect to international instruments dealing with terrorists and related activities. The UCDP subscribes to the establishment of all these mechanisms that establish peace, security, law and order. I thank you.

Dr S E M PHEKO: Chairperson, when considering the role of parliaments with regard to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and terrorism, African Parliaments, in particular, must look back into their pre-colonial history and see how Africans treated some of these matters and contributed to international law.

For instance, under King Moshoeshoe, the Basotho Africans had laws on war; for example, respect was to be paid during war, to women, children and the aged. Those who surrendered in war had their lives spared. King Dingaan, who has been portrayed as the most barbarous king in war, never killed white missionaries and other white civilians. In 1858, that is over 100 years before the 1949 Geneva conventions on the laws of war came into existence in Europe, King Moshoeshoe wrote to Boshoff of Lebowa – a trekker in the Free State; he was shocked at their conduct in war, and said:

  No, the captains of your commandos are not Christians. I shall never
  believe that Christianity consists in carrying away women and children
  into captivity, shooting down old and sick people.

Parliament must establish a mechanism to provide for the judgement and sentencing of crimes under international law, not with the objective of avoiding impunity, but with the objective of ensuring that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done. Close to home, this Parliament must not consistently ignore the international convention on the suppression and punishment of the crime of apartheid through which the United Nations declared apartheid a crime against humanity.

This Parliament behaves as if a crime against humanity does not apply to Africans. The PAC’s former Azanian People’s Liberation Army members and some former MK soldiers are languishing in the prisons of this country, while almost all apartheid criminals where given amnesty by the TRC. All … Izwe lethu! [The land of the people!] [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr R B BHOOLA: Thank you, Chairperson. The atrocities of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and terrorism are punishable and need to be punished so as to balance society in terms of correcting violations of human rights.

The MF believes that as Parliament we are a duty bound to pass legislation and policies that condemn these crimes as punishable and further legislate punishments for such crimes. The MF acknowledges that we have had the TRC handle many of South Africa’s horrors during the apartheid era, with many receiving amnesty. But the truth is that these horrific stories are a reality and a reality that South Africans never want to relive or see any people around the world live through. How do we protect society against such atrocities if suicide bombings are the method used? However, we must try, as justice and law have to prevail. The judgement and punishment of these crimes should serve not only to deter such offenders, but also to bring justice to the families and loved ones of so many victims, and in a way, return balance to society.

The MF acknowledges that this year’s Budget caters for bigger prisons to deal with our overcrowded jails. We do not want the space. We want less crime and fewer criminals. Society needs to be educated in the value of human life, no matter our diversity, and that these crimes can lead to war, and resolve nothing. Parliaments, globally, in representing their people, need to go back to the communities and allow for greater public-government interaction. Hear your people and be a government for your people.

The UN has served as a great body promoting global peace, human rights and global relations. Many countries have committed to working together with the UN to ensure this. However, unfortunately countries like the USA, throwing its weight around, going against the UN, went ahead and attacked Iraq. The MF condemns this.

These crimes against humanity are not only committed by individuals or terrorist organisations, but by countries too. In this case, how …[Time expired.]

Mr M S BOOI: Chairperson, hon members, we will attempt as the ANC to answer in terms of the role we have played to make South Africa able to adopt the protocols we are talking about. We will be able to champion, and show the champions that we are, in building the democracy we have at this particular moment. We will definitely show as wrong what Coetzee says in that we have not played our role and that the ANC, through the President, Thabo Mbeki, has not been able to say what should happen to society itself.

The President, in his message, says that democracy and equality before the law are entrenched in our Constitution. Women, workers, youth, professional people and people with disabilities, traditional leaders, religious communities, businesspeople and rural communities all have the right to utilise the opportunities that have come with freedom. Our first 10 years of freedom have been 10 years of growing unity in action; 10 years of peace and stability; 10 years of increasingly making the resources in the hands of the state available towards uplifting disadvantaged South Africans; 10 years of expanding opportunities to build a better life for all. That is what the President says, and that is what the ANC is saying. That is the type of mandate we carry as members of Parliament of the ANC.

Parliament has become an institution to which the ANC, through the 93 years of the existence of the ANC, has been able to bring all its experience and the hard work it has done through all the years – to express this in Parliament. We have been able to constitute and write a Constitution that all South Africans, black and white, have been able to adopt, and have been able to live up to. That is why we talk about a constitutional state.

So, if you say the ANC – through the expression of Comrade President Thabo Mbeki – has not been able to play its role, then you are definitely doing a disservice to all South Africans, because it is through the history of the ANC that we have been able to express our willingness and, untiringly, been able to show that we are willing to negotiate and we are willing to share some of our experiences with different South Africans. That has happened since 1994.

That is why the SA Police Service in its own role, and through being able to put together a Bill to ensure that South Africans can mediate and talk amongst themselves in how to resolve - rather than using terrorism in the old way – and in a new way of being able to see to it that we don’t use harsher laws to criminalise those that are opposing us overnight. We have been able to do that. And we have been able to establish a SA Police Service that has taken upon itself, and made it its responsibility, to continuously look after South Africans all over, black and white, and ensure that South Africans do feel that there is peace and stability within the country.

So, that is why I am saying that the ANC’s own experiences go back 93 years, in different countries and in the experiences that have been expressed by members around the issues of Rwanda, around the issues of Congo and the communities. When the ANC was founded in 1912 it made sure that the issues of ethnicity were thrown at the back of all our people and that the ANC was united as Africans and South Africans.

That experience is the experience that we have been able to use, and in terms of which we have been able to bring ourselves together as one House and craft a Constitution that all of us as South Africans are able to abide by. We have been able, together as South Africans, to have national legislation that has brought peace and stability to our country. So, this means that the ANC, through its different people, through its different leaders, through the executive, through the different arms of government, has been able to play its role, has been able to express fundamentally where society is supposed to go.

When President Mandela stood here and when Comrade President Thabo Mbeki was here the week before last, they were able to talk about reconciliation amongst South Africans. That history speaks for itself. It really shows the commitment the leadership and the ANC have towards their own people – of being able to make sure that we do understand how to work together and how to reconcile, whilst we say to ourselves that this is only dependent on true South Africans to be able to achieve and be able to make sure that the provision we are having today is implemented. That is only the history of the ANC that speaks for itself.

Within the Police Service, one of the major mechanisms that we have been able to make use of has been the community police forums. We have been able to make sure that communities assist us in fighting for peace and stability.

In essence, what we are trying to do is be able to say: Hold onto every South African that is able to fight crime. Hold onto every South African that is able to make sure that society becomes stable, and extend your hands towards them. And, then, make sure that your community police forums are working.

So these are some of the responsibilities that we have been speaking to as South Africans, as the ANC, so that we are able to make sure that the type of democracy and the entrenchment and deepening of democracy are being respected within our country.

One of the things that is within the history of the ANC in the 93 years of its existence, to show that we have rejected ethnicity - we have made sure that things that could lay the basis for South Africans to battle amongst themselves should be fought and should be rejected – was clearly to learn from some of our own leaders when they put together the Xuma Naidoo, the Xuma Dadoo, pact together. That pact has been able to lay the basis for a nonracial society and lay the basis of building a nonsexist society, and build a democratic society.

So all these experiences are experiences of the ANC, and they have been able to come within the precincts of Parliament and strengthen Parliament to continue deepening democracy and continue making sure that South Africans live a better life.

One of the things that we have been able to do in the years of the existence of the ANC is the following. In 1955 we came up with the Freedom Charter - after we had conversed and mobilised different South Africans in order to be able to come together and talk and express the type of country and type of government we should be able to constitute. That’s why we have been saying – until today – that the people shall govern. That has been strong with us, and that has been carried into the precincts of Parliament.

We have been able to make sure that South Africans from all walks of life outside this Parliament are able to live up to this mechanism and make use of it, because we continue saying to ourselves that as the ANC, in all the good that we could do, in all the responsibilities that we have given ourselves in the 93 years of our own existence, we will have to make sure that the history of the ANC speaks to that particular theme. That is the mechanism, that is the organ that has been able to build society and reorganise society.

We have not been able to go back and put in place legislation that is born and bred from the apartheid laws. We have rejected that, and we continue showing that we aren’t going to go back to that. We are saying that as we continue with this debate, as we continue expressing to South Africans where we are going as the ANC, we remain the pillar of society that we have to draw strength from, and that we draw from our own experiences and make use of the leadership we have as the ANC. This is so that we are very clear and able to say that that experience is the experience we will always continue to make use of.

Let’s look at one of the other things that the ANC has been able to influence society to adopt. It is the Preamble itself to the Constitution. In terms of that Preamble:

 We, the people of South Africa,
 Recognise the injustices of our past;
 Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land; Respect
 those who have worked to build and develop our country; and
 Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our
 diversity.

That is how the ANC has been able to make sure that all South Africans do understand and do work together. That is what we are saying to Coetzee in that this is what Comrade Thabo Mbeki has been able to express as one of the leaders of the ANC, and been able to talk to the issue to say: As South Africans, let’s hold hands together. Let’s make sure that we are able to work together. Let’s make sure that we work towards, and we look upon, the diversity we are talking about.

Regarding what the hon Mr Groenewald has been talking about, as the ANC we have walked over it. We have, in the past 10 years that we have been here, Mr Groenewald, stretched out our hands to the different Afrikaners. We have sat down with the Afrikaners. We have interacted with them. We have spent time understanding their language, and we have been able to talk the language of the communities you come from.

So, at no stage will the ANC alienate the people that they know are patriots. We will always be working with them. That is why we have stretched out our hands towards the National Party and been able to guide the National Party to join the ANC. This is because we take it out of our own responsibility, out of our own history, that it is us that will have to make sure that we continue taking hands with the Afrikaners and march with them all the way and not leave them behind. That is the responsibility that we say we will be able to take.

Mr P J GROENEWALD: Chairperson, will the hon member take a very easy question? Mr M S BOOI: When I’m finished, sir.

Mr P J GROENEWALD: When you’re finished. Please leave one minute.

Mr M S BOOI: So what I am saying is that we have shown that responsibility – the commitment that we have shown towards the Afrikaner community - is undoubted and we are unshaken about it. That’s why we say that this is not about party politics. It has always been about the responsibility that has been borne in the 93 year of the ANC. That is what we are continually practising, and that is what we are continually espousing. I can give … [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Hon member, there is no time for your question.

Debate concluded.

QUESTIONS AND REPLIES – see that book.

            FILLING OF VACANCY ON MAGISTRATES COMMISSION

                            (Nominations)

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): The Magistrates Act of 1993 requires the NA to designate four of its members to the Magistrates Commission, at least two of whom must be members of the opposition parties represented in the Assembly. On the 22nd of June 2004 the House designated three such members to the commission. It is therefore necessary for the Assembly to designate a fourth member from the opposition parties to the Magistrates Commission.

I have received a letter from the IFP nominating Mr L K Joubert to serve on the commission and a letter from the ACDP nominating Mr S N Swart to serve on the commission. Are there any further nominations from the opposition parties?

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Mr Chairperson, we made representations not to divide the House on this issue, we discussed it with our colleagues in the IFP, and our understanding was that they were withdrawing their nomination so that we would all support Mr Swart.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Mr Chairperson, may I confirm that? I was advised by the chief whip of the IFP that Mr Joubert was standing down and therefore we all agreed that we were prepared to support Mr Swart. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Can we ask the IFP to confirm?

Mrs S A SEATON: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, it would seem that Mr Douglas Gibson thought that perhaps he should confirm on our behalf. We do confirm that, thank you. [Applause.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Thank you. Therefore we only have one nomination - that is the nomination of Mr S N Swart - and therefore he’s duly nominated. [Applause.] I take it your applause was confirmation that there’s no objection to the nomination. Thank you very much. Mr S N Swart is then duly nominated to serve on the commission.

OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN

        (Consideration of request for approval by Parliament)

Mrs M S MAINE: Chairperson, hon members, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Cedaw, was adopted by the General Assembly in 1979 and came into force in September

1. Cedaw recognises that discrimination prevents women from enjoying the whole range of human rights and freedoms, including several of a cultural, economic, political and social nature. It sets out the obligations of governments to end such discrimination in public life, in family life and in customary and social life. This includes the obligation to report periodically to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the Cedaw committee, on measures taken to implement Cedaw.

The campaign is a global initiative set at enhancing the domestic implementation of Cedaw through advocacy around notification and use of its optional protocol. It seeks to build the capacity of constituencies to mobilise around the ratification and use of the optional protocol as well as monitor the implementation of the human rights of women through the lens of Cedaw.

However, since the coming into force of Cedaw, the mandate of the Cedaw committee has been limited to monitoring compliance on the part of states parties by receiving, reviewing and issuing observations and recommendations on the periodic reports that governments are obliged to submit. The committee was not mandated to consider individual complaints or to take recommendations on behalf of individuals.

Consequently, although Cedaw is one of the most widely subscribed-to international women’s rights instruments, violations of women’s human rights remain widespread in all societies and cultures and women are not aware of their rights and have difficulty in getting remedies to violations of these rights. Therefore an optional protocol to Cedaw was proposed to provide for better enforcement of women’s rights.

The Cedaw optional protocol does not create new substantive rights. It creates procedures for addressing and redressing the violation of rights established in Cedaw. The optional protocol is a separate treaty that came into force on 22 September 2002 in terms of article 15 of the optional protocol. Only states parties to Cedaw can become party to the optional protocol and must ratify or accede to the optional protocol in order to be bound by it.

Often, human rights treaties are followed by optional protocols that may either provide for procedures with regard to the treaty or address a substantive area related to the treaty. Optional protocols to human rights treaties are treaties in their own right and are open to signature, accession or ratification by countries that are party to the main treaty. The optional protocol mandates the Cedaw committee to act on individual complaints, as well as initiated inquiries.

This allows the Cedaw committee to focus on cases and situations that they cannot address through the standard reporting system. Thus, by ratifying or acceding to the optional protocol, a state recognises the mandate and jurisdiction of the Cedaw committee to review cases and situations in which alleged violations of women’s human rights have occurred.

The procedure mandated by the optional protocol benefits women in the following ways: They provide an opportunity for redress when states parties violate women’s human rights or fail to protect women against discrimination according to the terms of Cedaw. They fill an existing gap in the protection of women’s human rights, in particular by providing international resources to women who have been denied access to justice at national level. They allow the Cedaw committee to highlight the need for more effective remedies at national level as stipulated in Cedaw, and to make detailed recommendations on how these remedies can be achieved. They enable the Cedaw committee to elaborate recommendations into an existing body of jurisprudence on how women’s rights should be guaranteed and protected in real-life situations. They allow the investigation of substantial abuses of women’s human rights by an international body of experts; give the Cedaw committee an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the structural causes of violation, and allow the committee to address a broad range of issues in a particular country.

South Africa ratified Cedaw on 15 December 1995 without reservation, and is therefore eligible to become party to the optional protocol. In so doing the country confirms its commitment to the international community and domestic stakeholders to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women and to achieve equality between women and men, and to introduce and implement policies, laws and programmes to achieve the above-mentioned goals.

The optional protocol was tabled in Parliament on 3 March 2005, and referred to the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women in the NA, and to the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women in the NCOP on 4 March 2005 for consideration.

Should South Africa decide to ratify the optional protocol, it can benefit in the following ways: Take additional steps to implement Cedaw; foster or fast-track changes in discriminatory laws and practices; and enhance existing mechanisms for the implementation of human rights nationally, regionally and within the UN system. At the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing in September 1995 governments committed themselves to supporting the elaboration of a draft optional protocol to the women’s convention that could enter into force as soon as possible. By ratifying the optional protocol…

…naga e nngwe le e nngwe e e batlang go lwela kgololosego ya nnete e tla kgona fela fa bomme ba naga eo ba gololosegile, ba na le ditshwanelo le seriti sa go itumelela botshelo. [… any country that wants to fight for its true liberation can only achieve that if the women in that country are liberated, have rights and the dignity to enjoy life.] By ratifying the optional protocol, South Africa will be realising this commitment. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs S V KALYAN: Madam Speaker, it is all very well to adopt the optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. However, in doing so, we need to take a critical look at ourselves here in Parliament to see whether we have, in the past 10 years, given action to the vision and promises made at the Beijing Platform in 1995.

A worldwide review by the Women’s Environment and Development Organisation concludes that most governments have failed to turn the platform into action. It says that many governments worldwide have adopted a piecemeal and incremental approach to implementation, and that this approach cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, achieve the economic, social and political transformation underlying the promises and vision of Beijing 1995.

One of the major challenges that we as a Parliament need to address is the increased pressure from fundamentalist movements worldwide in respect of reproductive and sexual health care. The United States’ plan to insert a clause in the declaration specifying that the document does not create any new rights and that it does not include the right to abortion must be challenged fiercely.

I personally believe that with sexual abuse as a weapon of war on the increase, and the escalation of HIV infection partly because of sexual subordination, the right of women to choose to have an abortion should be seen as one of the key human rights.

One of the main achievements of this protocol is an increased awareness around the issue of the trafficking of women and children, and our Parliament needs to consider legislation on this issue as a matter of urgency. Also, while there is an increase in the number of reported cases of rapes in South Africa, with 52 000 reported in the period 2003-04, there has not been a parallel increase in the number of successful convictions. Therefore, we have to examine whether we are, in reality, running a legal system that may unintentionally discriminate against women.

It is commendable to adopt the protocol, and the DA is fully in support of this. However, it is regrettable that our delegation to the Beijing and Beyond Conference did not debate South Africa’s report in Parliament before they left. One wonders whether South Africa’s report will be tabled as a true reflection of the views of all those in this House.

The Joint Monitoring Committee met only once last year, and once this year. If we are truly serious about improving the quality of life and the status of women, then we need to show that or else it really will be a case of “Beijing betrayed”. [Applause.] Ms S C VOS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The IFP supports South Africa acceding to this optional UN protocol to the so-called Cedaw Convention because it is clearly the right thing to do, not, sadly, because we believe that by doing so, we will assist sooner rather than later in bringing rapid relief and justice to the millions of women throughout the world whom it is intended to assist.

This optional protocol strengthens complaint mechanisms in signatory countries, and I stress the keywords “signatory countries”. It gives women a forum to submit claims of violations of the rights enshrined in the Cedaw Convention if they believe that they are not – let me stress that again, not – adequately addressed in their own countries.

The devil is always in the detail and many of the countries in which we know women are suffering - and Darfur, Sudan, is a classic example - are not signatories to this optional protocol. Some countries in the war-torn Great Lakes area are also not signatories.

By doing what we believe is right today, we cannot, however, slacken, we believe, in our endeavours to ensure that we seek African solutions to African problems throughout our continent and particularly where they affect the women of our continent. Thank you.

Ms N C NKABINDE: Madam Speaker and hon members, the UDM supports South Africa’s accession to this optional protocol. As a leading nation in the pursuit of equality and dignity for women, South Africa should not hesitate to endorse this optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Our leadership should be exemplified by our willingness to be open to the scrutiny and advice of the community on the elimination of discrimination against women, as set out in the optional protocol.

Various UN conventions and international mechanisms have been created to formalise the fight against gender discrimination. Despite this, and the domestic application of these principles by many states, discrimination against women remains with us. We realise that the objective of gender equality is a long-term objective, but we cannot be merely content with slow progress.

It is sincerely hoped that this optional protocol will ensure the proper functioning of the committee, since it is the best mechanism to ensure the signatories to the convention actually achieve their goal instead of merely paying lip service. I thank you.

Nkskz M N MAGAZI: Somlomo, Malungu endlu siyi-ANC siyayixhasa into yokityikitywa koluxwebhu. Ukwaziswa kwalomnqophiso obizwa ngesingesi njenge optional protocol. Yabayinzuzo nenkululeko enkulu kumakhosikazi ehlabathi jikelele. Iqulethe indlela ezimbini apho ubani okanye iqela lingafaka isimangalo sokunyhashwa kwamalungelo ekomitini okanye inike ikomiti igunya lokuqalisa ngophando apho amalungelo athe anyhashwa, ize ithi isebenze kunye nabantu abangenabathetheleli ezizweni zabo ijonge ukuba banayo indawo apho banokuthi bathethelele khona. Leyo yinto eyenza ukuba isibhambathiso esenziwa eBeijing ngo-1995 singabizo zithukuthuku zenja zona ziphela eboyeni, koko sifezekiswe.

Njengoko esitsho uNobhala wezizwe ezimanyeneyo, sizamile ukwenza imitsi kwinkulungwane edlulileyo, ngoko ke masisebenze kule. Sisixhobo esifanelekileyo le protocol apho zithi izizwe zityikityele amakhosikazi ukuya kule komiti xa sithe isikhalazo asasabeleka ngendlela efanelekileyo kwilizwe laso. SinguMzantsi Afrika nathi kufuneka sizeke mzekweni wokuba yinxalenye yesisibhambathiso. Ngokwenjenjalo ngaphakathi apha ekhaya kuya kubakho indlela yokufumana amancedo angawo, unxibelelwano lokwazi ukuya kumangala kule komiti ukuba isebe lezobulungisa aliphumelelanga ukulungisa le ngxaki kwelo lizwe.

Inzuzo yoko ke kukuba uMzantsi Afrika uyakuwaphucula ngakumbi amalungelo amakhosikazi, uphumeze oko kuke nkomfa, ubhinqe omfutshane ukulungiselala amakhosikazi ukusuka kwizithili ukuya kwizizwe ezimanyeneyo. Bazakukwazi ukunxibelelana namanye amazwe aye azibandakanya kwelixwebhu, akhabana nezinto ezingavumelaniyo nezikhalazo zamakhosikazi kwanamalungelo awo. Izikhalazo zabo zizakuya nqo kurhulumente welizwe elo libandakanyekayo. Le komiti nayo iyakulandela ngokuba iyokwenza uphando kwesozizwe. Kwisithuba senyanga ezintandathu kufuneka le komiti inikezele ngengxelo yophando neengcebiso-recommendations, kwilizwe elo lichaphazelekayo ngokubhala, nelizwe elo kufuneka luphendule kwisithuba seenyanga ezintandathu, linike ingcaciso nesisombululo seengxaki ezo, emva koko ikomiti iyakuthi ihlale intlanganiso esekhusini ishukuxe le mibandela ngokwesikhokelo somnqophiso.

Singamakhosikazi aseMzantsi Afrika Siyalixhasa eligalelo. I-Status Of Women siyazihlala iintlanganiso, kodwa yona I-DA ayiphumeleli. Namhlanje izokuthi apha ihleli kabini, kanye kulonyaka nakulo uphelileyo, ndifuna ukuyicacisa ke loo nto leyo yokuba mabaphumelele ezintlanganisweni xa zibiziweyo, ukwenzela into yokuba ingazokuma eplatifomini ithi iJoint Monitoring Committee on the Improvement of quality of life and status of women ayihlali. Enkosi Somlomo. [Kuyaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa speech follows.)

[Mrs M N MAGAZI: Speaker, hon members, the ANC supports the signing of the protocol. The optional protocol is a positive step towards freeing women of the world. According to this document, an individual or a group can submit a complaint or lodge a grievance against the violation of human rights to the committee, which can then begin an investigation process about those abuses. It is meant to represent the people whose rights are being violated. That would certainly prove that the Beijing Conference of 1994 was not a futile exercise after all.

As the UN Secretary-General asserted, we have worked hard to establish policies in the past 10 years, which we therefore, during the next 10 years, need to implement. The optional protocol is the right tool for women to utilise when they find that their problems are not resolved in their countries. South Africa should ensure that it is part of this agreement. By doing so, we would be able to assist one another and there would be better co-ordination of processes and activities as well as making sure that procedures that are to be followed when complaints are lodged with the committee if the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development does not satisfy them are clearly understood by all concerned.

This would certainly improve the status of women in South Africa and fulfil the objectives of the conference with regard to all women under the auspices of the UN. They will be able to mobilise with women from other nations of the world that are part of this agreement in the fight against the abuse of women. Their grievances would be lodged directly to the country concerned. The committee will then be committed to conducting an investigation into that country. After six months the committee should submit a written report about the findings of its investigation, together with recommendations to the country. The country concerned would be expected, within six months, to make its submissions and resolutions with respect to the matter. After that the committee would hold a private meeting to debate the issues within the guidelines of the agreement.

As South African women, we support this effort. When the Office on the Status of Women holds meetings, the DA does not attend. Today they are making false claims, that the office has only sat twice - once this year and once last year. I am asking them to attend and take part in these meetings so that they can make their contributions to the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of the Quality of Life and Status of Women. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]]

Ms F BATYI: Hon Speaker and members of the House, the ID wholeheartedly supports the optional protocol to the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and agrees that such will be determined to ensure the full, equal enjoyment by women of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to take effective action to prevent violation of these rights and freedoms as stated in the protocol, including all socioeconomic rights enshrined by our Constitution.

Our very progressive Constitution clearly makes provision for the equal promotion of women and states that no person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of, inter alia, gender, sex, pregnancy or marital status. The ID therefore, believes that it is absolutely imperative that all measures should be adopted that will contribute to the promotion of these constitutional rights.

However, the ID is concerned about the implementation of the protocol, especially when the progress and the status of women in South Africa, as well as around the world, have not improved to the point as anticipated by the Beijing Platform for Action. In South Africa women still constitute 57% of all unemployed people, still have incredibly high electricity rates and still have difficulty in gaining access to the benefits of the economy and gaining the needed skills.

Therefore, in light of these and other continuing problems, the adoption of this protocol should be seriously considered by government in order to strengthen the faith of South African women in our third democratic government. I thank you.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Madam Speaker, the ratification of Cedaw by the SA government increased efforts on measures to address discrimination against women. However, despite levels of advancement that have been attained, there is widespread consensus that progress with regard to promoting women’s rights has not resulted in a satisfactory reduction in poverty, abuse and violence, so prevalent among women. The optional protocol makes available the rights of individuals and groups of women to partition the committee on the elimination of discrimination against women and to initiate inquiry procedures by the committee. The ACDP would welcome this additional resource for women in South Africa and around the world but remains opposed to the Cedaw convention which affirms the reproductive rights of women thereby promoting and protecting legal abortion on demand and legally binding countries that have ratified or acceded to the convention to put its provisions into practice. The ACDP commends the US delegation for bravely and unashamedly protecting the right to life of unborn babies and the right of future generations of women to exist. I thank you.

Mr S K LOUW: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate. I will focus on the procedures provided under the optional protocol. As mentioned previously, the optional protocol provides for two types of procedure, for example the individual complaints procedure, and the inquiry procedure.

The individual complaints procedure - article 2 of the optional protocol - empowers any individual woman, or group of women, whose rights under Cedaw have been violated in the state that has ratified the optional protocol, to present a written complaint to the Cedaw committee.

However, this can only be done after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, unless domestic remedies are unlikely to bring effective relief, or the application of such remedies is unreasonably prolonged – article 4. This means that if violations against women occur in countries where access to domestic remedies are denied or significantly restricted, they may bring their cases immediately to the attention of the Cedaw committee. Moreover, the optional protocol empowers individuals, the victims themselves and organisations, including nongovernmental organisations – NGOs – to lodge complaints on behalf of victims with their consent. This feature is important in the light of the political, economic, social and cultural factors that so often restrict women’s access to information and to practical opportunities to claim their rights.

The inquiry procedure – article 8 – of the optional protocol empowers the Cedaw committee to launch, on its own initiative and on the basis of reliable information, inquiries into grave or systematic violations of the rights of women as contained in Cedaw. The Cedaw committee can consider information on grave or systematic violations from credible sources, including information provided by women’s organisations and NGOs when initiatives and inquiries are launched.

Grave violations include severe abuses, for example discrimination against women such as a violation of their right to life, physical and mental integrity and security of the person. “Systematic” refers to the scale of prevalence of violence or to the existence of scheme or policy direction violation. Violations not amounting to the level of severity implied by graveness may still be the focus of inquiry if there is a pattern of violation, or if abuses are committed pursuant to a scheme or policy. An example is forced sterilisation of indigenous women in public hospitals.

The optional protocol provides for an in-depth examination of the underlying cause of the discrimination against women, and can focus on abuse that would normally be submitted to the Cedaw committee by means of individual complaints. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr N T GODI: Madam Speaker, comrades and hon members, the PAC supports the ratification of this protocol by Parliament as forming part of and consolidating the general thrust and sweep of our own commitment, demonstrated through numerous institutions, measures and enactments to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaimed all human beings as born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Our ratification of the protocol is a reaffirmation of our commitment to ensuring the full and equal enjoyment by women of all human rights on our continent and the world over. It is regrettable that 10 years after Beijing and its Platform for Action and despite the momentum it generated and the new paradigm it created, the universality of women’s rights is not yet universal.

Our ratification of the protocol should serve to strengthen international solidarity against discrimination against women and help to expose and isolate states where discrimination against women is still pervasive - women without the right to vote; women without the right to be voted for; women without the right to drive a motor vehicle; women given in marriage without their consent; women given away to settle family and tribal debts; and a whole host of other traditional and legally based forms of discrimination. These states are indeed the outposts of tyranny. Thank you. [Applause.]

Ms S RAJBALLY: Igama lamakhosikazi. [In the name of women.] [Applause.] Madam Speaker, our democracy comprises a system founded on the values of human rights, equality, nonsexism and nonracism, to name but a few.

Women have been prioritised on the South African agenda and liberated in all sectors, policies and legislation entitling them to equal status and the same opportunities as men. In South Africa it is proudly acknowledged that over the past 10 years women have been advanced greatly in our society and have taken up senior and important positions, showing equal ability, as well as the stance women are moving towards.

The MF condemns all forms of discrimination against women and all humankind. In view of the protocol to Cedaw, we invite global efforts in this manner to liberate and empower women around the world, which would serve to eradicate this inhumanity. We, however, wish that the optional protocol be extended to three procedures: communication, inquiry and action to eradicate it.

The MF supports the accession to this optional protocol. Not only would we be uniting with countries globally to uphold human rights, but would also be setting and promoting the future and further eradication of domestic discrimination against women. The MF supports the signing of the optional protocol to Cedaw. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Nkskz P TSHWETE: Somlomo, Baphathiswa abakhoyo phakathi kwethu, booSekela- Baphathiswa abakhoyo, malungu onke ePalamente, kuluntu lonke emakhaya, masiyibulele intlanganiso ehlanganise amakhosikazi eNew York, abandakanya awaseMzantsi Afrika nawamazwe onke.

Masiphinde sibulele ngentlanganiso ebibanjwe ngamakhosikazi apha ePalamente, nalapho kuye kwavunyelwana ngamaqela onke ezopolitiko. Ndiyayibulela ke loo nto.

Ndicela ukuba ndilungise kancinci, njengomhlalingaphambili obambeleyo,…[Kwahlekwa.]… ohloniphekileyo uQabane uDudley ngelithi, thina asinalo igama elithi “uqhomfo”; sine”lungelo lokuzikhethela ukukhupha isisu”…[Kwaqhwatywa.] Loo nto ibonisa uxanduva esisenalo, makhosikazi, lokuba kuse kude apho siya khona, kusafuneka sifundisile. Amakhosikazi avumelene ngamxhelo-mnye, elandela isigqibo esathathwa yikomiti ye-Cedaw, yona eza kuqinisekisa ukuba izikhalo zamakhosikazi aseMzantsi Afrika, awaseAfrika nawelizwe lonke liphela ziyamanyelwa. Loo nto ibonisa ukuba umzabalazo wooLillian Ngoyi, wooMama uNonyamezelo Mxenge nooMama uMaxeke awusoze ube lilize. Ndiqinisekile ukuba amathambo abo ayashukuma.

Masomelele, makhosikazi, silwe nobundlobongela obugqale kakhulu kumakhosikazi. Masizame ukuba amakhosikazi aphaya ezilalini nawo mawakhuseleke. Loo nto ithetha ukuba sinoxanduva lokuba siye kucacisela amakhosikazi ezilalini ngesi sivumelwano. (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)

[Ms P TSHWETE: Speaker, hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers, hon members of Parliament, the public at large, let us be grateful for the women’s convention held in New York involving women of South Africa and the women of the world.

Let us be thankful for the meeting held here in Parliament by women, where all political parties reached an agreement. I appreciate that.

As acting chairperson, I want to rectify this … [Laughter.] Hon Dudley, we do not have a word in our vocabulary for “abortion”, we have a right of choice to terminate pregnancy … [Applause.] That shows how huge our responsibility is, we still need to educate people.

Women have reached a collective agreement, following the Cedaw declaration to listen to the cries of women in South Africa, Africa and the world. This shows that the fight for freedom by Lilian Ngoyi, Mrs Nonyamezelo Mxenge and Mrs Maxeke will not be in vain. I am convinced that their bones are shaken by this accomplishment.

Women, let us be strong and fight the abuse of women. Let us try and empower women in rural areas. Therefore, we have an obligation to go and explain the agreement to these women.]

Ten years into democracy, we are proud to say that there are numerous visible signs that show that we are committed to women’s emancipation. So we have nothing to fear from committing to this optional protocol. We have committed ourselves to improving the quality of life and status of women, and to prove our commitment we have put in place a very complex gender machinery.

The protocol will, therefore, ensure the long-term protection and promotion of women’s rights as a result of the possibility that women will be able to report any violation of these rights to the Cedaw committee. It will also encourage us to keep on identifying and amending existing discriminatory laws and policies, and to fully implement the provisions of the Cedaw convention.

Kodwa ke, Somlomo, noxa kunjalo, kufuneka siveze elubala izinto ezingqamene namakhosikazi. Amakhosikazi norhulumente kufuneka ezame ukuveza izithuba zemisebenzi kuba uxhaphazo lubangwa kukungabikho kwemisebenzi.

Ndifuna ukwenza umzekelo. Singurhulumente kufuneka sikulwe ukuthengiswa komzimba ngamakhosikazi kuba efuna ukondla abantwana bawo. Kufuneka siveze elubala nabathengi aba. Ukubizwa kwamakhosikazi ngokuba ngoonondindwa luxhaphazo olo. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows)

[Nevertheless, Speaker we must put forward issues affecting women. Women and government must fight against prostitution that is practised to alleviate poverty. The clients of these practises must be exposed. It is also abuse to call women insulting names.]

We can’t sell if there’s no one to buy.

Ngoko sidinga ukubeka elubala abathengi aba, kuba bona banethamsanqa kuba abaveli. Esi sivumelwano masiveze elubala aba bantu bama phaya esitalatweni baloba ngemali abantu bethu abaphethwe yindlala. Esi sivumelwano siza kujongana nezinto ezinjalo. [Kwaqhwatywa.]

Ndibulela ndiqinisa amadoda azimisele ukuncedisa kwilinge lokukhusela amakhosikazi. Ndikhe ndatsho ngaphambili, njengomhlalingaphambili obambeleyo, ukuba kulaa komiti yethu sesinamadoda amathathu. Sicela lande inani lamadoda kuyo ukuze aze kusincedisa. [Kwaqhwatywa.]

Andinakuhlala phantsi, Somlomo, ndingayenzanga inkuthazo kumakhosikazi ukuba ayisebenzise i-Optional Protocol. Ngexesha amakhosikazi ebebambe umngcelele ekhalaza ngokubhekisele kwityala lokuxhwilwa kwenkosikazi elipolisa, uRasuge, amakhosikazi aye avakalisa ukuba azimisele ukulwa de afumaneke, kwaye kufumaneke nomenzi wesi senzo. Ndicela ukuyaleza nakusapho lwakhe ukuba thina singamakhosikazi siza kusisebenzisa esi sivumelwano, kwaye silila nalo.

Siyambulela urhulumente ngeenguqu azenze kwixesha elincinane, iminyaka elishumi kuphela, ezibangele ukuba abantu bakwazi ukuvula umlomo. Siyacela ke ukuba amakhosikazi asisebenzise esi sivumelwano. Sicela nokuba amakhosikazi ayeke ukuthi xa ebethiwe athi awe ebhafini, esoyika ukuxela ukuba abethwe ngabayeni bawo ngephezolo.

Sicela ukuba siyisebenzise le optional protocol kuba ngokungenzi njalo siya kuba asiluthabatheli kuthi uxanduva lwesivumelwano esamkelwe sithi sonke.

Xa ndihlala phantsi, makhosikazi, manditsho ukuba sinoxanduva naphaya ezicaweni, lokuqinisekisa ukuba i-optional protocol ayipheleli nje ekubeni ibe luxanduva lwe-convention, koko iba luxanduva lwethu sonke. Kufuneka siye phaya ezicaweni, sithethe ngayo, sicacisele namakhosikazi ezilalini. Ndiyabulela. Enkosi, Somlomo. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows)

[We need to expose the clients because they are fortunate, as they are not publicised. This agreement must be able to expose those clients who seduce poor women. The agreement is going to guide us in such issues. [Applause.]

I thank and support men who are willing to help in preventing women abuse. As an acting chairperson, I know that there are three men participating. We request an increase in their number in order to get more support. [Applause.]

Before I take a seat let me advocate to women to use the optional protocol. During the march for Rasuge’s case - the policewoman who was abducted - women voiced their commitment to fight until she is recovered and the culprit is found. We as women want to tell the family that we are with them and we are going to utilise this agreement.

We thank the government for the transformation it has achieved in a very short period of time, ten years, for people to be vocal. We ask women not to lie and cover up for their husbands about the physical abuses they suffer.

We request women to use the opportunity of the optional protocol because if we are not doing that we will not be holding to the agreement we made as our responsibility.

In conclusion, I must say to women, we have a responsibility to advocate this in churches so that it is not the liability of the convention only to emphasise this but all of us. We must preach about it in churches and explain it as well to the women in rural areas. Thank you, Speaker. [Applause.]]

Debate concluded.

Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women approved (African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

The House adjourned at 17:36. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS



                       THURSDAY, 3 MARCH 2005

TABLINGS

National Assembly

1. The Speaker

 (a)    Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the
     Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, tabled
     in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.

 (b)    Explanatory Memorandum to the Optional Protocol to the United
     Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
     Discrimination Against Women.

     Referred to the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of
     Quality of Life and Status of Women for consideration and report.


                        FRIDAY, 4 MARCH 2005

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister in the Presidency

 (a)    Strategic Plan of the International Marketing Council for 2005.

 (b)    Strategic Plan of the Media Development and Diversity Agency for
     2005-2008.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Assembly

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Citation of Constitutional Laws Bill [B 5 - 2005] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 2 March 2005:

   The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the subject of the Citation of Constitutional Laws Bill [B 5 - 2005] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 5A - 2005].

                     MONDAY, 7 MARCH 2005
   

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. Draft bills submitted in terms of Joint Rule 159

 (1)    Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of
     Land Amendment Bill, 2005, submitted by the Minister of Housing on
     1 March 2005. Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Housing and
     the Select Committee on Public Services.


    2) National Credit Bill, 2005, submitted by the Minister of Trade
       and Industry on 3 March 2005. Referred to the Portfolio
       Committee on Trade and Industry and the Select Committee on
       Economic and Foreign Affairs.



                        TUESDAY, 8 MARCH 2005

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly

1. Membership of Committees

 (1)    Dr E A Schoeman has been elected chairperson of the
     Constitutional Review Committee with effect from 7 March 2005.

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry

 Strategic Plan of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry for 2005-
 2008.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women on the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, dated 8 March 2005:

   The Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, referred to it, recommends that the House and the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Protocol.

 Request and report to be considered.

National Assembly

1. INSERT ATC0308

                    WEDNESDAY, 9 MARCH 2005
   

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson

 Report of the Auditor-General on the Performance Audit of Overall
 Management Measures at Ntsika Enterprise Promotion Agency [RP 11-2005].

COMMITTEE REPORTS

CREDA PLEASE INSERT REPORT - INSERT ATC0309