CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Just a thought...perhaps to become action?

From the SA Constitution:
<b>Freedom of expression</b>

16. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes ­

freedom of the press and other media;
freedom to <b>receive or impart information or ideas</b>;
freedom of artistic creativity; and
<b>academic freedom and freedom of scientific research</b>.

Surely Telkom's attempt to limit international bandwidth with their "local is lekker" campaign is a violation of these constitutional rights?

<b>Privacy</b>

14. Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have ­

their person or home searched;
their property searched;
their possessions seized; or
<b>the privacy of their communications infringed</b>.

Now here we have a moot point - define communications. define privacy - surely the content we choose to view is our business?

Any legal eagles out there? comments please...

Here's a course of action according to our constitutional rights...
<b>Enforcement of rights </b>

38. Anyone listed in this section has the right to approach a competent court, alleging that a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed or threatened, and the court may grant appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights. The persons who may approach a court are -

anyone acting in their own interest;
anyone acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name;
anyone acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons;
anyone acting in the public interest; and
an association acting in the interest of its members.

Ta da - how to hit the headlines very very rapidly and internationally. All we have to do is make representation to a constitutional court or body and make bloody certain the press are aware of it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Peapod</i>
<br />All we have to do is make representation to a constitutional court or body and make bloody certain the press are aware of it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The Constitutional approach is a brilliant idea, however, representation in a constutional court (High court or higher) comes at a very high expense and with much scrutiny. Before we embark on something like this, we need to get our facts straight, dot the i's and cross the t's (i've always wanted to say that). I have a cousin who is a professor of law at Wits University (hence my previous posts on getting some legal advice). I'll chat to him and see what he can suggest and help us with.

Excellent idea - but I do agree with Quazzi though...

Guys we forget two things
Point 1. Under the constitution, we have the right to be heard irrespective of cost. Think about it - we are a non prodit body, we sell nothing, we gain nothing. We have no income, we are as a body, indigent. We have a right to be heard irrespective of what taking this matter to court costs.
Point 2. Many of the constitutional rights are open to interpretation. Do we really care what the outcome is? The higher courts debating this matter is the EXPOSURE we seek for Telkom's practice. I agree we have to have a watertight argument and a valid and well prepared case to put forward. That will cost us little if we all work on it together (time and intellignce). I am happy to act as co-ordinator. The actual filing and process surrounding bringing this matter to court isn't clear - Quazi, we need you law prof!

If what peapod is saying is correct I am happy to donate my time & limited intelligence []

Lo all.

My dad is a lawyer, so I can speak to him and see if he has any ideas. Will report back if there is anything interesting []

Chow, Nick

Nick Smit
[email protected]

I am all for putting as much pressure on Telkom to improve its service, however i think you will find it exceedingly difficult to prove any of the points you raised, the fact that this is only one of Telkom's product and that Telkom is not restricting your right to choose another product that will not have any limit on international access.
We all know that after the cap it is virtually impossible to reach international sites, but the tap is not closed, just very slow, thus Telkom will just argue that they are still not restricting your international access, just the speed at which you can reach it.

You will probably have a better case following the route of Telkom changing the service midway without offering reimbursements to unsatisfied and affected parties.(but even for this telkom always stated that they <b>may</b> impose a cap, so the warning was out there from the beginning)

We need to make sure we have a airtight case before we even think of taking these guys on in a Constitutional court.