Uncategorized

Our income varies considerably from year to year, depending on how much our donors are able to give towards our work. Sometimes a large amount of money is given for a specific project / cause, resulting in a spike in income for that particular year. Examples of this would be the building of the clinic in Zavora (Mozambique) during the 2009 and 2010 financial years and the building of the Table Mountain Orphan Centre during the 2012 financial year. From this graph it can be clearly seen that Operation LifeChild and Aid to Africa are our largest projects in terms of funds received and applied. Most of our donors wish to support a specific project and we take great care in allocating all donor funding according to our donors’ wishes. The General Admin consist mainly of telephone costs, bank charges and the honorariums of 12 full-time volunteers who work at head office. It often happens that the funds allocated for General Admin are used to cover shortfalls on other projects, especially for Operation LifeChild, since supporting all our orphans on a month-to-month basis can be a financial challenge. It has even happened that our volunteers have had to forfeit their honorariums in order for us to meet our commitments toward our orphan centres. In terms of funding received and used, Operation LifeChild was our largest project during the 2012 financial year. We received donations specifically for the building of our Table Mountain centre, which constituted 21{01b0879e117dd7326006b2e84bcaac7e8fa1509c5c67baf2c9eb498fe06caff4} of our total spending for the year. The 76{01b0879e117dd7326006b2e84bcaac7e8fa1509c5c67baf2c9eb498fe06caff4} spent on orphans includes food and other necessities bought for the orphans as well as wages for the caregivers who are directly responsible for caring for the day-to-day needs of our children. It also includes the cost of delivering food to our centres of which some are situated in very rural areas. A small percentage (3{01b0879e117dd7326006b2e84bcaac7e8fa1509c5c67baf2c9eb498fe06caff4}) of donor funds intended for Operation LifeChild is used for administrative expenses which are directly related to the running of this project. These expenses include the honorarium of one dedicated volunteer at head office who coordinates this project. During the 2012 financial year outreaches were made to Zambia, Angola and Malawi.  There have also been outreaches to remote areas within the borders of South Africa. Currently this project consists of two parts: –  The LifePlace coffee shop in Durban where we reach out to prostitutes, and –  our SafeHouse where we accommodate ex-prostitutes who would like to make a fresh start in life. The LifePlace coffee shop runs on a budget of R5 000 per month, out of which we pay the rent, electricity, telephone and a honorarium for a full-time volunteer dedicated to this project.  The outreaches to the prostitutes on the streets of Durban are also financed out of this budget.]]>

SnapScan: Doctors For Life Trust SnapScan: Doctors For Life International Aid to Africa Credit Card: https://www.givengain.com EFT/Direct Deposit ABSA Bank Doctors for Life International Acc Type: General Acc Acc no: 40 5835 6895 Branch Code: 632005 ]]>

Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another, with Doctors For Life International and Others as amici curiae CCT 60/04 (2005) In this case it was contended that the Marriage Act 25 of 1961 was unconstitutional in excluding same sex couples from getting married. DFL and its legal representative Mr John Smyth QC, were admitted as amici curiae, and made written and oral submissions to the Court. In DFL’s presented socio-psychological evidence to prove that traditional marriage have sufficient advantages over homosexual unions to warrant special protection by the law and deserves privileged status in society.]]>

De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (2002/2003) DFL testified for the State on the effects of pornography on the brains, minds and memory of those looking at it. This decision was confirmed by the Constitutional Court. Deputy Chief Justice Langa (now Chief Justice) held that “Child pornography is universally condemned for good reason, it strikes at the dignity of children, it is harmful to children who are used in its production, and it is potentially harmful because of the attitude to child sex that it fosters and the use to which it can be put in grooming children to engage in sexual conduct”.  ]]>

Jordan & Others v The State CCT 31/01 (2002) The constitutionality of sections of the Sexual Offences Act which criminalise the act of the prostitute for prostitution, but not the client and keeping or managing a brothel, was challenged. DFL assisted the Attorney General of Gauteng (now the Director of Public Prosecutions of Gauteng) with research on the health issues surrounding adult prostitution. This included  the role of prostitution in the spread of STD’s and AIDS, as well as the dire psychological effects suffered by the prostitute, his/her family, the client, his/her family and society as a whole. The Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the brothel provisions, but split 6-5 with respect to the criminalising of the sex worker for prostitution with the majority finding the provisions constitutional. Ngcobo J writing for the majority found that the challenged provisions were not unconstitutional.]]>

Prince v The President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope CCT 36/00 (2000) The appellant was a practicing Rastafari who allegedly used marijuana for religious reasons. His initial challenge was directed at the Law Society’s finding that he was not a fit and proper person to be admitted as an attorney because he had previous convictions for possessing marijuana and said he would continue using it. The possession and use of cannabis is prohibited by the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and the Medicines and Related Substance Control Act. His appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal challenged criminalising dagga but shifted to a plea for a religious exemption for adult Rastafari. The Supreme Court of Appeal found against the appellant, who then appealed to the Constitutional Court. DFL assisted the State with medical evidence proving the harmfulness of marijuana. In a 5-4 judgment the Constitutional Court subsequently decided against the appellant.]]>