Disability Equality Rights in South Africa: Concepts, Interpretation and the Transformation Imperative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Bill of Rights expressly prohibits unfair discrimination on the basis of disability; however the Constitutional Court has not yet addressed the meaning or scope of disability equality. This article seeks to develop an indigenous model of conceptualizing and interpreting equality for people with disabilities in South Africa. It draws form scholarship that has emerged from the global disability studies movement, and incorporates contemporary thinking about disability rights as a core component of international human rights. The article adopts the purposive, generous and inter-dependent approach of the Constitutional Court to interpreting the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The model of equality used in the article grows out of the transformative imperatives embodied in key legal instruments, prioritizing the enhancement of capabilities, the realization of self-worth and individual potential, the preservation of human dignity and the promotion of individual and collective self-determination. Pivotal in the analysis is a conception of equality that understands difference as not necessarily a basis of disadvantage, but as a source of richness and inherent value. Constitutional and statutory instruments provide the legal tools for pursuing a project of transformation in disability equality. They outline more than just an aspiration of equality, but create positive rights, provide access to remedies and establish an institutional framework for monitoring and enforcement. In exploring how the concept of disability, as a ground of equality protection, can be developed and applied, the article also seeks to promote a programme of broader societal transformation for people with disabilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".