The Grootboom judgment, interpretative manoeuvring and depoliticising children’s rights

Abstract

Our people did not give their lives in exchange for the mere freedom to walk the streets relatively unharrassed, nor to suffer continued deprivation while the architects of the old rules lived in splendour ... we have won the debate on whether economic and social rights should or should not be included in the Constitution ... what we need to do is work out how far the new and relevant rights should go ... is it practical or ethical that a child’s right to nutrition can be secured while the mother and father starve? Can the child’s right to nutrition be realised in the absence of the right to water? Can the ultimate aim of nutrition, good health, be assured if a child has a full stomach but has no home to live in? Can we realistically expect that a homeless child have a full stomach?