House Chairperson, hon members, this debate is a celebration of a nation, not a political party. Today we honour the bravery of those South Africans who fell in the Sharpeville Massacre. Because of their sacrifices and those of countless others, we are the custodians today of one of the most progressive, most human rights-inspired documents in the world. It is a beacon that those who came before us never had - our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Therefore it is with deep reverence and pride that we can say today that they did not die in vain.
Our Constitution sets a benchmark by which Parliament is duty-bound to measure our progress or regression in respect of human rights. It was the product of painstaking negotiation and historical compromise. It is our codified compact, based on a nonracial idea called "the new South Africa". Above all, our Constitution inherently expresses the classical definition of human rights: To do unto others as we would have them do unto us. It was this impulse that animated the young Mohandas Gandhi after he was pushed off a train in Pietermaritzburg; the founding fathers of the ANC 100 years ago; a young Steve Biko, who paid the ultimate price; a certain young journalist who fearlessly uncovered his violent murder; our nation's father, Nelson Mandela; our nation's conscience, Archbishop Desmond Tutu; the feisty Helen Suzman, a lone opposition voice in the apartheid Parliament; and countless other individuals who bravely played their part in bringing us all here today. This is why, in our parliamentary democracy, our Constitution is sovereign. There are no sunset clauses on the Bill of Rights. To say that the codified national consensus has "proved inadequate and inappropriate for our social and economic transformation phase", as hon Minister Radebe has said, is unproven. It is irresponsible and, quite frankly, it is disrespectful.