To spare the rod or not, is the Q

2017-11-02 06:01

Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) on Monday said a High Court ruling which ordered parents to no longer spank their children would set a dangerous precedent.

“The judgement sets a very dangerous precedent for other cases where children’s rights have to be weighed against parental and religious rights,” FOR SA’s executive director Michael Swain said in a statement.

Swain was responding to Thursday’s South Gauteng High Court ruling which prohibits parents from physically disciplining their children.

“Parents who disobey the law and continue to spank their children may be charged with assault and face criminal prosecution,” Swain said.

Parental discipline

He said FOR SA, which made submissions as a friend of the court, argued in favour of reasonable chastisement on the basis of Christian belief permitted by scripture.

“FOR SA argued further that parental discipline is an important part of parents’ duty to ensure their children are brought up as responsible human beings with a sense of right and wrong, and that it is therefore ultimately for the child’s good and in his or her best interest.

“FOR SA deplores the high rates of child abuse and domestic violence in South Africa, and strongly condemns any form of violence against children,” he said.

“There is, however, a fundamental and obvious difference between violence and abuse and reasonable and moderate chastisement in love.

“It is unfortunate that the judgement does not recognise this distinction which is also recognised by the social sciences, and considers chastisement in all circumstances to be detrimental and harmful to children.”

The religious organisation was concerned that the judgement encroached on parental authority as well as the freedom of parents.

“Although the judgement states that ‘as far as possible, parents should not be criminalised’, in law it is possible that criminal sanctions may be imposed and children who are considered to be at risk of abuse or violence in the family home may be removed from their parents.”

Swain said the organisation was also concerned that the court had overreached in its judgement and said the ruling “effectively usurps the power of Parliament, [which] has primary responsibility for law reform”. Swain said the appellant had three weeks, from the date of judgement, to apply for leave to appeal the judgement at the Supreme Court of Appeal. —News24

Join the conversation!

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.
NEXT ON NEWS24X

Inside News24

 
/News
Traffic Alerts
Traffic
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.
 
English
Afrikaans
isiZulu

Hello 

Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.


Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.

Settings

Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.




Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.