South Africa: Constitutional Assembly Resources Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Constitutional Assembly Resources >> 1995 >> [1995] ZAConAsmRes 823

| Noteup | LawCite

Citizen Contribution: E Komen [1995] ZAConAsmRes 823 (14 February 1995)

 

14 February 1995



As a citizen of our beloved country, I wish to -make the following recommendations to) be considered for inclusion in our new constitution. They are :-

1. A Bill of Rights should be entrenched in the constitution.

2. At present, fathers of children born out of wedlock have no automatic rights to access their
children. This right only applies to the child's mother. Fathers are, however, responsible for the child's maintenance and upkeep. This is a gross injustice towards fathers and probably comes close to some form of prejudice or other. The result of this is that both father and child lose out. A child should have an automatic right to see his father, irrespective of what the relation ship may be between the child’s parents.

The way I see the law now, is that children and especially those born out of wedlock, have no rights. The constitution should, through the bill of rights, provide rights to children born out of wedlock to ensure access to their parents and parents access to their children without any hindrance.

3. It is totally immoral and unacceptable to tax estates of deceased people. This is an old concept and many modem countries have abandoned the idea. It is unfair for the state to take a final cut from a dead person, who has aft his working life contributed towards the receiver of revenue.

4. The constitution should entrench freedom of expression at all cost, in particular in the media.

5. Property rights should be spelled out in such a way that if anyone causes the devaluation of
another person's property in anyway, the state ensures that the value of the property is maintained through any means possible e.g. through compensation.

6. It should be unconstitutional to discriminate or harm individuals belonging to n-minority groups.

7. The weight of a homeowner’s vote i.e. a rate payer, should be greater than that of a person who may live in an area but is not a rate payer. This is a simple argument despite what apartheid may have done me disenfranchised communities the opportunities to ultimate ly own homes. Even recipients of RDP homes should only have a weightier vote if they" are rate payers.


I hope the above will go some way in identifying some ofmy personal concems.




E Komen