Twelve months from now, if you slap your mischievous little one at home, you might find yourself on the wrong side of the law, depending on whether South African government endorse the South African Human Rights Commission’s (SAHRC’s) request.
The SAHRC has asked the government to introduce amendments to the Children’s Act within the next 12 months to prohibit the use of corporal punishment in the home. Such legislation is necessary to comply with international human rights obligations and to ensure that children in South Africa enjoy protection of their constitutional rights, the organisation argues.
The SAHRC’s move follows a case in which it adjudicated, in which a concerned members of the public informed the SAHRC that Joshua Generation Church was administering corporal punishment to children. Upon review of international, regional and domestic law, the SAHRC found that all forms of corporal punishment violate the ‘best interest of the child’ principle, protected under the South African Constitution. Corporal punishment furthermore violates children’s right to be free from maltreatment, neglect, abuse and degradation, their right to freedom and security of the person, their right to dignity and their right to equal protection by the law. The SAHRC highlighted that the right to religion allows religious communities to practice their religion in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution; it does however not allow religious communities to violate other individuals’ constitutional rights.
Some organisations, like the Children’s Institute (as one would expect) and have lauded the SAHRC’s stance.
Not everybody is impressed by the developments, nonetheless. Others – and they not necessarily in the minority – fear a situation where too many rights are granted without obliging concomitant responsibility on the subject’s part. In particular, the children’s right does not suggest what equally effective non-corporal alternatives can be introduced, as one critic put it.
