Quick Excerpt From The Article I am Working On: Kylie v CCMA and Others (Labour Appeal Court)

"The LAC did not properly apply its 'common sense' in the matter. It did not deal with the purpose and objects of dismissal legislation nor did it adequately address the poignant issue of jurisdiction. Instead it dealt with a golden opportunity in a vague, indirect and impractical manner. It employed it’s own reasoning in certain aspects and did not do so in other identical aspects, neither did it offer any reasons as to why it did not do so. In other instances the LAC dismissed the reasoning of the LC and thereafter applied the same 'floored' reasoning to aspects on appeal which were identical in nature. In summation, the LAC has simply left the legal sphere with great uncertainty and a precedent which is unpossessed of practicality or beneficial effect."

I Have Resolved

So, my completed treatise had to be handed in today. If you are not sure what a treatise is, its far closer than a lot of people will ever come to writing a book. In the field of law, the footnoting and referencing needs to be in a particular style and of course everything needs to be coherent and substatiated by case law or some other authority. Im currently on around 300 references. Nothing counts unless you can back it up.

The problem is, it is not entirely complete. Im on about 50 pages of typing and we're not talking 50 pages of whatever you could gather. 50 pages of good solid stuff, arguments that should stand the test of time. As to the problem, I have applied for an extension. The committee is convening as I type this in order to assess the motivations advanced by various individuals in application for an extension. I believe my application is in good standing, so im not too worried but am at the same time worried. The consequences are just too great. It would mean either of, hadning in an unfinished unshaped piece of work which has taken the full time of a year to gather OR it could possibly mean that it will not be accepted. I forgot to mention that today is also the day for submission.

As to my new resolution. I realise with all of the work that I have to do and the frequency with which this work presents itself, that I will in probability rarely have time to type these posts. The other thing is if you keep waiting for something to post about, you dont post often enough. So. I have resolved to post at least once a day regardless of the fact that I do not have some poignant topic of discussion in my pocket. I will make a habbit of this. If I may, and this may actually be common knowledge since I am something of a novice in respect of blogging, I would advise that any blogger adopt this as good practice too.

In The Meanwhile

I am currently working on a very interesting article. It concerns a court case which was finally decided on the eve of the 2010 Soccer World Cup. Of course part of South Africa's concern at the time was the expectation of trafficked prostitutes en masse to entertain our international guests. We therefore considered the legalisation of prostitution in order to regulate it in some way.

In respect of the court case I am referring to, it was conservatively named "the Kylie case" or more specifically, Kylie v CCMA and others. Simply put it involved the unfair dismissal of a prostitute from her brothel. Of course this brothel had been disguised in the form of legal employment. The case went through a labour tribunal, onto a Labour court and was thereafter appealed in the Labour Appeal Court. The final court held that a prostitute was entitled to labour rights, which in South Africa are constitutionally entrenched rights. It also held that in principle, because of a prostitutes susceptibility to infringements on her dignity that she was involved in an employment sphere which made her an especially vulnerable person. Accordingly that a court ought to extend constitutional protection to prostitutes for the reasons stated above.

It is a very interesting decision which is both celebrated by some and abhorred by others, as it would be in most countries. The significance of this decision defies the historical conservative approach adopted by South African courts in respect of illegal employment. It may therefore be seen as a leap forward into a new era of our constitutional dispensation. However the reasoning employed in the judgement present many anomalous implications and inconsistencies.

What I have attempted to do is point out these inconsistencies and exploit them. Once it is done, I will upload it and place it under the "thoughts" tab. I should complete it by the end of this week. In regard to the other articles I am working on, watch this space!