law, toronto, lawyers, civil, litigation,
This is a presentation by Judge Edwin Cameron at the International AIDS Conference in Mexico City. He presents ten reasons why criminalisation of HIV transmission is a bad idea.
The AIDS Law Project (ALP) is pleased to announce the successful conclusion of its litigation against the SANDF's policy of excluding HIV positive people from recruitment, external deployment and promotion. It is a vindication of the Constitution and should be seen as having significance not only for the military in South Africa, but internationally. The order means that:
The AIDS Law Project, acting on behalf of the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society, the Rural Doctors Association of Southern Africa and the Treatment Action Campaign has made a submission to the South African Human Rights Commission requesting an investigation into human rights violations committed by the MEC for Health in KwaZulu-Natal, Ms Peggy Nkonyeni. The submission also addresses actions by her staff.
The AIDS Law Project has brought a case against the South African National Defence Force on behalf of the South African Security Forces Union (SASFU) and three individuals with HIV who have been discriminated against. The case will be heard in the Pretoria High Court on 15 to 16 May 2008.
AIDS Law Project Press Statement, 9 May 2008, For Immediate Release
DEFEND ETHICAL DOCTORS FROM UNETHICAL POLITICIANS
DR MALCOLM NAUDE GOES TO LABOUR COURT TO CHALLENGE DISMISSAL IN 2001 FOR PROVIDING ARVs TO RAPE SURVIVORS
CERTIFICATE IN TERMS OF RULE 18(6) OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES
I hereby certify that the requirements set out in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of Rule 18(6) of the Constitutional Court Rules have been met.
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
TAC v MINISTER OF HEALTH / MECS - 11 March 2002
In this matter the respondents filed an application for leave to appeal against an order made by men on 14 December 2001.
The application was an application for a certificate in terms of Rule 18(6) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court and also, in the alterative presumably, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
At the hearing the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was abandoned.
The applicants filed an application that leave to execute the order against the first to ninth respondents be granted pending the appeal. I assume that no order is brought against the tenth respondent because, as appeared from the papers in the main application, the tenth respondents is already substantially complying with the order.